REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 70, Pasig City

RCBC BANKARD SERVICES CORP.,

Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. M-PSG-17-03079-CV
versus - For: SUM OF MONEY

SPS. MARY GRACE C. COLLADO &

NAPOLEON G. COLLADO,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
-----------------------------------------------------

Defendants, SPS. MARY GRACE C. COLLADO and

NAPOLEON G. COLLADO, by and through the undersigned counsel,
unto this Honorable Court, respectfully aver and state that:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Defendants neither DENY NOR ADMIT par. 1 alleging

plaintiff’s personal circumstances and residence address and
neither DENY NOR ADMIT the allegation that plaintiff may
be served with legal processes through the said residence
address, the same being a matter of court rules and
procedure and not an allegation of ultimate fact;

2. Defendants ADMIT par. 2 alleging defendants’ personal

circumstances and residence and postal address where it
may be served with summons and other court processes;

3. Defendants DENY par. 3 averring that the plaintiff is

engaged in managing, maintaining and operating a credit
card system and other international network of affiliated
banks and business establishment for lack of knowledge;

4. Defendants ADMIT par. 4 insofar as to the details of the

credit cards obtained from the Plaintiff but DENY insofar as
to the Terms and Condition governing the use of the said
credit card for lack of knowledge;

5. Defendants DENY par. 5 alleging that the defendants

splurged and exhausted their credit card limit without
remitting enough payment to plaintiff for lack of material
truth and basis;

6. Defendants DENY the allegations contained in par. 6, the

1
 truth being that he was never furnished any breakdown by
the plaintiff on how his indebtedness had reached such an
amount, so doubts the accuracy of the amount claimed by
the Plaintiff. Because the truth is, the Plaintiff HAS NOT
MADE ANY FINAL DEMAND upon the Defendant.
Plaintiff has therefore no proof that the Defendant’s
obligation had become due and demandable, simply because
it has not made any demand to that effect;

7. He specifically denies the allegations contained in par. 12 of

the Complaint, as the charging of TWENTY FIVE PERCENT
(25%) of all sums due is too exorbitant to be charged as
Attorney’s fees;

DEFENSES

8. Defendant repleads the allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs;

9. The Secretary’s Certificate has no attached Board Resolution

and is thus ineffective. With this, Hygeia C. Calaor, the
signatory in the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping of the complaint had no authority to sign the
same;

10. The Supreme Court have consistently held that the

certification against forum shopping must be signed by the
principal parties. If, for any reason, the principal party
cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must
have been duly authorized. With respect to a corporation,
the certification against forum shopping may be signed for
and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who
has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed
in such document. A corporation has no power, except those
expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those
that are implied or incidental to its existence. In turn, a
corporation exercises said powers through its board of
directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents.
Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation
to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of
directors that exercises its corporate powers. In turn,
physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of
documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly
authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a
specific act of the board of directors[1].

1Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161838, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 491,
498.

2
 11. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants and
Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP),[2] it was
ruled that only individuals vested with authority by a
valid board resolution may sign the certificate of non-
forum shopping on behalf of a corporation. We also required
proof of such authority to be presented. The petition is
subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted
unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's authority

12. In the present case, since Plaintiff is a corporation, the

certification must be executed by an officer or member of
the board of directors or by one who is duly authorized by a
resolution of the board of directors; otherwise, the complaint
will have to be dismissed. The lack
of certification against forum shopping is generally not
curable by mere amendment of the complaint, but shall be a
cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. The
same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping
signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are
unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to
file the complaint on behalf of the corporation.[ 3]

13. There is no proof that Plaintiff, a private corporation,

authorized Hygeia C. Calaor, through a board resolution, to
sign the verification and certification against forum shopping
on its behalf. Accordingly, the certification against forum
shopping appended to the complaint is fatally defective, and
warrants the dismissal of the instant complaint.

14. Lastly, to this date, the Defendants have not received any
of the demand attached in the complaint;

15. As there was NEVER ANY DEMAND on the part of the

Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Obligation which Plaintiff is
trying to enforce against the Defendants is not due and
demandable, and thus cannot be the basis of a judgment
against the latter.

COUNTERCLAIMS
2 G.R. No. 143088, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 605, 608.
3 Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., supra note 18, at 499.

3
 Defendants respectfully replead the allegations in the
preceding paragraphs in support of the following counterclaims:

FIRST COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

5.1. Plaintiff has deliberately filed this blatantly malicious

Complaint to the detriment of defendants.
Particularly, the wrongful, baseless, and malicious
suit filed by plaintiff caused defendants to suffer
sleepless nights, besmirched reputation, serious
anxiety, and hurt feelings.

5.2. Plaintiff should be ordered to pay defendants an

amount of not less than Php 50,000.00, by way of
moral damages.

SECOND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

5.3. In filing this wrongful, baseless, and malicious suit,

plaintiff acted with evident bad faith, in a wanton,
fraudulent, and oppressive manner, and in
malevolent disregard of the rights of defendants.

5.4. By way of example or correction for the public

good, so that others who are like-minded may be
deterred from committing such pernicious acts and
actuations, plaintiff should be ordered to pay
defendants the amount of not less than Php
50,000.00, by way of exemplary damages.

THIRD COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

5.5. As a result of the malicious filing of the Complaint,

defendants were compelled to protect their
interests and seek redress for their grievances and
thereby incur litigation expenses in an amount of
not less than Php 20,000.00.

PRAYER

4
 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully pray that this Honorable
Court render judgment DISMISSING the Complaint.

On the Compulsory Counterclaims, Defendants respectfully pray

that judgment be rendered as follows:

1. On the First Compulsory Counterclaim, ordering plaintiff

to pay defendants Php 50,000.00 as moral damages;

2. On the Second Compulsory Counterclaim, ordering

plaintiff to pay defendants Php5 0,000.00 as exemplary
damages;

3. On the Third Compulsory Counterclaim, ordering plaintiff

to pay defendants not less than Php 20,000.00 as
litigation expenses;

4. Ordering Plaintiffs to pay the costs of suit.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted this 26 January 2018 in Rodriguez, Rizal,

Philippines for Pasig City, Philippines.

ATTY. RANI ANGELI C. SUPNET

Municipal Hall, Brgy. Balite
Rodriguez, Rizal
Roll No. 64419
Lifetime IBP No. 017771
PTR No. 7863576 RIZAL
MCLE Compliance No. V - 0020390

COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. VIVIAN E. PALIS

Rm. 102 David I Bldg., 567 Shaw Blvd.
Mandaluyong City

EXPLANATION

Due to distance and lack of available office messengers, the original copy
of this Answer was filed before the Honorable Court of Pasig City and furnished
to the counsel for defendant by registered mail.

Rani Angeli C. Supnet