ANSWER Revisedfinaldraft

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESREGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONCity of Makati

Branch 08

MARIA BEATRICE C. MADRIGAL, Plaintiff,

-versus-

JOSEPH HALLEY P. SANTOS, Defendant.

Civil Case No. 8808For: Compulsory Recognition and Support pendente lite.

x---------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendant thru the undersigned counsel and unto this honorable Court, and in answer to plaintiff’s complaint, respectfully avers:

ADMISSIONS/DENIALS

1. That the defendant ADMITS paragraph 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the complaint;

2. That the defendant ADMITS the allegations in paragraph 11 of the complaint, that the plaintiff and the defendant’s sexual encounter would normally occur thrice a month, but DENIES the allegation that it became more frequent after their first anniversary in August 2011. The truth of the matter being that it is only for the period of August and September 2011 that it became frequent because the defendant was in Dubai, United Arab Emirates from October 5, 2011 to December 5, 2011 for training sponsored by the BPI. Proofs of the defendant’s absence are his passport, marked as ANNEX “1”, the formal invitation from NASDAQ DUBAI, marked as ANNEX “2” and the certificate of completion of Anti-Money Laundering and Corporate Governance Workshop, marked as ANNEX “3”. Plane

1

tickets, boarding passes, hotel accommodation receipts, and various commercial receipts are also attached as annexes 7 to 8 respectively.

3. That the defendant DENIES the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 2 and 16 alleging that he is the father of the plaintiff’s child, the truth of the matter being that the defendant was recently declared as CONGENITALLY STERILE caused by Cystic Fibrosis. Medical Abstract of the defendant marked as ANNEX “4” proves such claim.

4. That the defendant is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments made in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 thereof;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:

5. Defendant reiterates, pleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that:

5.1. The complaint fails to state a cause of action because the child being the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party-in-interest. Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Aquino Sr.1 provide that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.

5.2. The complaint fails to state a cause of action on the ground that a condition precedent was not complied with. That that there is non-compliance with Sec. 6 of P.D. 1508.

5.3. The complaint states no cause of action on the ground that, to be entitled to support, an illegitimate child must establish filiation to his/her illegitimate parent. Under Article 172 in relation to Article 175 of the Family Code (FC), such filiation can be established by an admission in a public document or a private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned. The defendant did not acknowledge their illegitimate relationship in the child’s birth certificate as evidenced by ANNEX “5”.

5.3a. That there is no resemblance between the putative father, herein defendant and the child.

5.3b. The impossibility to sire a child with the plaintiff because of of the defendant’s physical absence during which conception should have occurred.

1 451 SCRA 735

2

5.3c. The physical impossibility to sire a child because of his sterility as evidenced by the previously mentioned ANNEX 4.

5.4. The defendant, assuming arguendo that Benjamin Madrigal is his child, is not capable to give support because he is jobless, unemployable caused by the revoked license, savings depleted due to an unsuccessful business venture and no other source of livelihood plus the fact that he is still nurturing the pain of his inability to procreate.

5.4a. That the defendant’s PRC license, after the finding of Professional Regulatory Board of Accountancy of the complaint filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, was revoked on the ground of Immorality and dishonorable conduct on February 10, 2011. This is evidenced by the copy of the Resolution of the Adm. Case No. LCA-0016 marked as ANNEX “6”.

5.4b. That the defendant’s employer terminated his employment because of the revocation of his PRC license effective on March 15, 2012 marked as ANNEX “7”.

5.4c. That the defendant being out of work and unemployable as an accountant, ventured and invested all his savings in retail business in his provincial root, Bohol. The convenience store OPEN ALL THE TIME started its operation on October 1, 2012. Proofs of the existence of the store are the certificate of registration issued by the DTI and mayor’s permit to operate business. Marked as ANNEX “8” and “9” respectively.

5.4d. That the defendant’s store was one of the businesses and infrastructures that were damaged during the 7.2 magnitude earthquake in Bohol. This is evidenced by the report submitted by the Local Government of Bohol to The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) marked as ANNEX “10”.

5.4e. That the defendant upon his return in his Makati residence on November 4, 2013 found out that his house is being levied in favor of the government because of his refusal to pay his internal revenue tax liability after demand over the same property. A copy of the Notice of Delinquency is attached as ANNEX “11”.

3

COUNTERCLAIM

6. Defendant reiterates, pleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that he is entitled to relief arising from the filing of this unfounded and baseless suit, as follows:

6.1. Moral Damages amounting to One Million Pesos (PHP1,000,000/00) because his name and reputation were besmirched by this malicious and baseless suit.

6.2. Attorney’s Fees amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) because he was compelled to secure services of counsel to vindicate his legal rights.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays:

a) For a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses.

b) For the award of the amount of One hundred Thousand Pesos (P100, 000.00) for the expenses incurred in litigation.

c) For such other relief consistent with law and equity.

City of Makati, Philippines, December 02, 2013

B.O.S.S.E.S Law Firm63A, 3/F St. Maur Building

Don Manolo Blvd. Alabang Hills VillageMuntinlupa City.

Tel # (046) 484 – 7256; Fax # 551 - 5055

By:

BALICAS, ATTY. ALEXIS VICTORCounsel for Defendant

IBP No. 523465; 01/01/12 - MuntinlupaPTR. No. 6878234; 01/01/12 - Muntinlupa

Roll No. 34233; 08/10/09MCLE No.I – 354353; 01/01/11

MCLE No. II – 343255; 01/01/11

4

OPERIANO, ATTY. GIDEON JOSEPHCounsel for Defendant


Roll No. 265543; 08/10/08MCLE No.I - 674534; 01/01/11

MCLE No. II – 666323; 01/01/11SANGALANG, ATTY. MAY ALILI

Counsel for DefendantIBP No. 763434; 01/01/12 - Muntinlupa

PTR. No. 6575543; 01/01/12 - MuntinlupaRoll No. 353455; 08/10/08

MCLE No.I – 643334; 01/01/11MCLE No. II – 564565; 01/01/11

SANTOS, ATTY. IRENE SAMANTHA ALEXISCounsel for Dfendant

IBP No. 232556; 01/01/12 - MuntinlupaPTR. No. 6754423; 01/01/12 -Muntinlupa

Roll No. 423455; 08/10/09MCLE No.I – 434325; 01/01/11

MCLE No. II – 343457; 01/01/11

EUSEBIO, ATTY. MARK ANTHONYCounsel for Defendant


Roll No. 889877; 08/10/09MCLE No.I – 986766; 01/01/11

MCLE No. II – 896765; 01/01/11

SIMBRE, ATTY. MARHEN JASONCounsel for Defendant

IBP No. 546456; 01/01/12 - MuntinlupaPTR. No. 5547676 – 01/01/12 - Muntinlupa

Roll No. 534534; 08/10/09MCLE No.I – 435477; 01/01/11

MCLE No. II – 676544; 01/01/11

Copy furnished:

BAYLON, BAUTISTA, FORMALEJO, SORIANO & TARUCAN Law Firm

5

Counsel for plaintif.SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG School of Law 63/E, 3/F St. Maur Bldg.Don Manolo Blvd., Alabang Hills Village, Muntinlupa City.Tel # 854 – 3098; Fax # 867 - 9122

RECEIVED BY: DATE:VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )CITY OF MAKATI ) S.S.

I, JOSEPH HALLEY P. SANTOS, Filipino, of legal age residing at Unit 18, 18/F Greenbelt Parkplace, 112 Don Carlos Palanca Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City, after being sworn to in accordance with law, deposes and says that:

1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have read and caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer and have read the allegations contained therein;

3. The facts stated in the above answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and/or based on authentic records;

4. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending in them; and

5. If I should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending after its filing, I shall report that fact within five (5) days from notice to the court or where the complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

6. That I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 2nd day of December, 2013 in the City of Makati.

JOSEPH HALLEY P. SANTOS

6

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this day of December , in the City of Makati by Joseph Halley P. Santos with Passport No. XY2398737 issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs issued on August 1, 2013 at the City of Manila. .

Doc No. 565;Page No. 343;Book No. 54;Series of 2013

ATTY. PAQUITO QUITOSNotary Public for Makati8/F Montepino Building, 138 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village Makati City, Metro Manila

Commission Serial No. A-764Until December 31, 2012Roll of Attorney No. 544356IBP No. 454576; 01/01/12; MakatiPTR No. 5645678; 01/01/12; Makati

7

Documents

ANSWER Revisedfinaldraft