Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
RICARDO SY,
Plaintiff,
Case No.
For: COLLECTION FOR A SUM OF
MONEY, ATTORNEYS FEES AND
OTHER RELIEFS
-versus-
LITO PEREZ,
Defendant,
x-----------------------------------x
ANSWER
(With Affirmative Defenses)
And, by way of . . .
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
8. PNOC adopts and repleads all the foregoing allegations as they are
pertinent herein;
11. The abolition of the corporate entity PDMC is peculiar since this
was ordered by the Chief Executive, through the GCG. It should, however, be
borne in mind that, PNOC is a separate juridical entity from PDMC, thus it is not
bound by the agreements entered into by PDMC;
Page | 2
ANSWER
LGTM Corporation vs. PNOC
Case No. R-MKT-16-063363-CV
x---------------------------------------x
15. LGTM was given access to the property. The reason they were not
able to continue with their work is because they failed to get a Development
Permit from the Municipal Mayors office, as evidenced by the letter of
Rosario mayor Jose M. Ricafrente Jr. dated September 29, 2008 (Letter
hereto attached as Annex D). The letter of Mayor Ricafrente clearly states that
the reason for the denial of the Development Permit is the access bridge from
Greenfields Subdivision leading to subject property, and which was started
before but opposed by the majority of residents, as it will induce flooding in the
whole area. With no Development Permit, which is the obligation of the FIRST
PARTY to procure, the project cannot proceed. Hence, contrary to the allegations
of LGTM, it is not due to squatters issue but possible flooding that caused the
delay in the project implementation. Under the MOA, particularly Paragraph 2
(2.2) it states, The FIRST PARTY (LGTM) shall secure and pay for all
necessary licenses plus the cost of the required bond, permits, approval
from the City Government, HLURB;
16. The reason LGTM failed to push through with their development of
the property was their failure to secure a Development Permit (DP) from the
Municipality of Rosario, Cavite, despite having been given full access to the
property by PDMC;
17. The expenses incurred by LGTM are expenses that LGTM willingly
agreed to take on, as evidenced in the MOA provisions. It is a business
expenditure that LGTM took on willingly and as part of their obligation under the
MOA. It was LGTM which failed to comply with the requirements of the
MOA, specifically the provision under 2.5 which expressly states that the
period for securing a Development Permit shall be within (3) months from
turn- over of the property. PDMC gave LGTM full access to the property in
compliance with its obligation under the MOA;
18. PDMC initially offered the property at issue through public bidding
prior to its abolition, in accordance with COA Circular No. 296 dated January 27,
1989 on the disposal of property and other assets. And after a failed bidding, the
negotiated sale with the Deed of Absolute Sale to Majestic Landscape
Corporation was finally executed on March 26, 2015;
19. Even with the publication of the offer to dispose the property, LGTM
did not express any interest to acquire the subject property. Neither did it show
any intent to pursue the project under the MOA. It is only now, after the lapse of
almost eight (8) years, that LGTM Corporation seeks to pursue its project with
PDMC, when the latter has already been abolished.
Page | 3
ANSWER
LGTM Corporation vs. PNOC
Case No. R-MKT-16-063363-CV
x---------------------------------------x
PRAYER
Other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises, are likewise prayed for.
JOSE C. CALIDA
Solicitor General
Roll No. 24852
IBP No. 1019162
MCLE Exemption No. VI-000016
Copy Furnished:
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Page | 4
ANSWER
LGTM Corporation vs. PNOC
Case No. R-MKT-16-063363-CV
x---------------------------------------x
Page | 5