Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch 11
Davao City

JAMES T. REID Civil Case No. 8076545

Plaintiff,
FOR: RESCISSION OF
-versus CONTRACT,
DAMAGES, and
ATTORNEY’S FEES
ALDEN F. RICHARDS and
JERICHO ROSALES
Defendants.
x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER

Defendant Alden F. Richards, duly assisted by counsel and unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully files this answer and alleges
THAT:

1. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Complaint are admitted;

2. The allegations stated in paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 are specifically

denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof;

3. The allegation in paragraph 7 is partially denied for the reason

that Defendant Jericho Rosales is no longer connected as an
employee and for whatever purpose with the Max Machine
Service Repair and Metal and Co. owned by Defendant
Richards;

4. The allegation in paragraph 8 is specifically denied for lack of

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth thereof;

5. The allegations in Paragraph 9, 10 and 11 that a repair contract

was entered into and between the defendant and plaintiff and
that the vehicle was received by virtue of the contract are

1
 specifically denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative
and special defenses hereunder;

6. The allegation in paragraph 9 is denied the truth being that

stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder;

7. The allegation in paragraph 10 is denied for lack of information

or knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief;

8. The allegation in paragraph 16 is specifically denied. On

December 2, 2018, it was the police station that contacted and
informed both the Plaintiff and Defendant Richards of the
incident and that the jeepney was still impounded within the
premises of the police station for further investigation. Hence, it
could not be said that the jeepney was immediately delivered to
the shop on the same day.

9. The allegations in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 are denied for

lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable
belief thereof;

10. The allegations in paragraphs 17 and 18 are specifically

denied as Defendant Richards has respectfully replied on the
said demand letters and patiently and exhaustively explained
why the Defendant should not be made liable to damages
caused to the Plaintiff (photocopy of the reply to the demand
letter is hereto attached as Annex 1);

11. The allegation in paragraph 19 is admitted but with the

affirmative and special defenses stated hereunder;

12. The allegations in paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 24 are denied for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a reasonable
belief thereof;

13. The allegation in paragraph 23 is also specifically denied the

truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses
stated hereunder;

14. The complaint filed by PLAINTIFF failed to state a cause of

action thereby rendering it dismissible outright;

2
 15. That effective November 26, 2018, Jericho Rosales, the former
driver of the shop was no longer an employee of the Defendant
(as evidenced by the Notice of Termination of Employment
Contract posted in the main office of defendant and is hereto
attached as Annex 2 and the publisher’s affidavit that a
publication of said notice was made and hereto attached as
Annex 3);

16. The alleged service repair contract and receipt of vehicle by

Max Machine Service Repair and Metal and Co. was entered
into ONLY by Plaintiff James Reid and Jericho Rosales and
NOT by Defendant Alden Richards as shown by Annex “B” of
the Complaint;

17. Defendant Alden Richards had no knowledge that the subject

vehicle was delivered to his shop for repair on November 28,
2018 as no such delivery was entered into at his shop’s Daily
Records which encodes all the services rendered and
transactions entered into by Max Machine Service Repair and
Metal and Co. to its customers (attached is a copy of the entry
for November 28, 2018 on the Daily Records as Annex 4);

18. Neither did the Defendant had any knowledge that the subject
vehicle was brought for repair as no such vehicle was seen in
the shop’s premises from November 28, 2018 up to December
2, 2018 when the accident happened nor was an alleged repair
of the same was recorded in the shop’s daily report and
inventory (photocopy thereof is attached herewith as Annex 5);

19. The signing of Jericho Rosales of the aforesaid service repair

was without any legal authority and is thus illegal and clearly
did not bind the Defendant Owner. It was incumbent upon
Plaintiff James Reid to have ascertained the identity of Jericho
Rosales and his capacity to enter into such Auto-Repair Service
Agreement;

20. Defendant Alden Richards did not have any legal possession
of the vehicle nor bound itself to be accountable for any and all
incidents that may occur while the said vehicle is in their
custody;

21. Thus, Defendant cannot be held liable for Breach of Contract

as Defendant never became a party to the said Auto-Repair
Service Agreement;

22. The use of Jericho Rosales of the subject vehicle was without
the consent and knowledge of Defendant Richards;

3
 23. As no contract was entered into by Defendant and Plaintiff,
Defendant was not duty bound to exercise the utmost diligence
of a very cautious person on the care of a vehicle surrendered
for repair. Thus, defendant could not be held answerable for
any actual damages caused by the accident;

24. After a painstaking review of the Complaint, it is apparent from

the allegations therein that it seeks to charge Defendant liable
as the employer of Jericho Rosales for the latter’s liability for
quasi-delict;

25. However, it is well-settled that an injured party shall only have

recourse against the servant as well as the employer for whom,
at the time of the incident, the servant was performing an act in
furtherance of the interest and for the benefit of the employer.
Hence, since Jericho Rosales was no longer an employee
when the accident happened and was not acting in furtherance
of the interest of his employer Defendant Alden Richards, he
cannot possibly incur any liability for the former’s conduct nor
for any payment of actual, moral, exemplary damages as well
as attorney’s fees and expenses for litigation;

By way of Counterclaim

26. Due to the malicious filing of this instant suit, Defendant has
hired the services of the undersigned counsels for an agreed
amount of one hundred thousand pesos (PHP 100,000.00) and
have suffered sleepless nights and besmirched reputation
which when quantified in monetary terms is in the amount of
three hundred thousand pesos (PHP 300,000.00).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Defendant most

respectfully prays for the dismissal of the complaint and the award of
counterclaim.

Other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable are

likewise prayed for.

4
 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of February 2019
at Davao City, Philippines.

ALDEN F. RICHARDS
Defendant

Assisted by:

THERESE ANNE S. CANDOLITA

PTR No. 888705/01-7-18/Davao City
IBP Life Member Roll No. 022899
Roll of Attorneys No. 78901
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. V-0007783
Issued on April 7, 2015, Davao City

5
 VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, ALDEN RICHARDS, of legal age, Filipino, after having been

duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say, that:

I have caused the preparation of the said Answer with

Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim; I have read, and know the
contents thereof; the allegations therein are true and correct of my
own knowledge and belief;

In connection with the Counterclaim, I certify to the truth and

the following facts and undertakings:

a) The defendant has not commenced any other action or

proceedings involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency;

b) To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceedings

is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency;

c) If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding

is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16 th

day of February 2019 at Davao City, Philippines.

ALDEN RICHARDS
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on the date and in the

place above-written, with affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. 6981031 issued on February 16, 2019 at Davao City
and Driver’s License No. L02-06-21147403 issued by LTO Davao, to
expire on July 7, 2021. I hereby certify that I have personally

6
examined the affiant and am convinced that he executed and fully
understood the contents of the foregoing affidavit.

THERESE ANNE S. CANDOLITA

NOTARY PUBLIC
Until December 31, 2022
PTR No. 888705/01-7-18/DC
Doc. No. ___; IBP OR No. 022899, Lifetime
Roll No. 78901
Page No. ___; MCLE Compliance Certificate
Book No. ___; No.V-0007783, Davao City
Series of 2019.

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. RAYMUND U. YAP

UY, YAP Law Firm Suite 203, LandCo Bldg., Bajada Street, Davao
City

Explanation: A Copy of this document was served through registered

mail due to lack of material time and personnel.