Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL

th
10 Judicial Region
Branch 19
Cagayan de Oro City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ​CR-FMY CASE NO. 2018-2372

Plaintiffs,

-vs- ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​FOR: Violation of Section 5 (h)

Of Republic Act 9262

BEN SAAC,
Accused,

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

PRE TRIAL BRIEF

ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, before this Honorable Court,

respectfully submits this Pre-Trial Brief:

SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The accused admits the following:

1. The identity of the one charged in the information and the identity of the one
arraigned is one and the same;

2. The identity of alleged victim, Catalina Saac;

3. The time and place of the alleged commission of the offense which was on June
08, 2018 between 5:30 in the morning to 1:15 in the afternoon;

4. That he was able to inflict slight physical injuries upon the victim via self defense
when the victim violently and unceremoniously forced him out of his abode by
collaring him and at the same time intensely squeezing his testicles.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/573285…2d02f919aadd27616cf1a560ce273320b30c5e30622015e8a31 07/08/2019, 11A44 AM

Page 1 of 6
 The accused denies the following:

1. That he called the victim out loud as a paramour thereby inflicting emotional and
psychological violence against her. The truth of the matter was that, by his very
nature, he is a quiet person and that his wife Catalina was the noisy and bossy type;

2. That he went to the house of the victim on the date the incident happened
purposely to harass her, but rather he went to their home to visit his children and at
same time proposed a peace offering towards his spouse by saying that the Php
1,800.00 he was renting his temporary abode by the seaside after he was ejected from
their home through temporary protection order issued by the court was already
sufficient to buy at least a sack of rice for the family’s consumption and it was
needless for him to live separately considering that they can patched up things and
resume living a peaceful existing together like they have being used to for more than
twenty (20) years;

3. That he was carrying the recovered hunting knife purposely to harm his spouse.
The truth of the matter was that he was always having the knife tucked by his side
considering the fact he resided by the seaside alone and the knife was merely for his
own protection;

4. That he has ill intention towards his wife and family.

The truth of the matter was
that he truly cared for his wife and family the reason why he worked hard from
Monday to Saturday as a painter (building and house) and would only spend Sundays
at home.

5. The accused totally denies the offense charged, specifically Section 5 (h) of RA
9262 involving his infliction of substantial emotional, psychological and physical
violence against the victim;

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the infliction of slight physical injuries to the victim via self
defense falls within the

BRIEF STATEMENT OF PARTIES’ CLAIMS’

Plaintiffs’ claim

Briefly, plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that:

1. Mr. Wilt Naliponguit, owner of ATK Builders, claimed to be a creditor of

Edison;

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/573285…2d02f919aadd27616cf1a560ce273320b30c5e30622015e8a31 07/08/2019, 11A44 AM

Page 2 of 6
 2. His status, as such, allegedly was founded on a Subcontracting Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) he entered into with Mr. Ian Daryll B. Magat, an alleged
employee and attorney-in-fact of Edison;

3. Mr. Naliponguit was a debtor of Oro Solid Hardware, Inc.;

4. Mr. Naliponguit, to fully pay his debt with Oro Solid Hardware, Inc.,
executed a Deed of Assignment of Receivables in favor of the latter to, first:
extinguish all his liabilities with Oro Solid, and second: transfer all his rights and
interests to collect from Edison in favor of Oro Solid;

5. Oro Solid, as assignee of Mr. Naliponguit and through its attorney-in-fact Mr.
Cipriano Puyo, filed a case for collection of sum of money against Edison purportedly
to collect the Php 14,000,000.00 obligation of the latter and accompanied with a
prayer for preliminary writ of attachment together with a demand for reimbursement
of actual expenses for the filing of the case and attorney’s fees;

6. The application for the writ of preliminary attachment was anchored on false
representation and fraud allegedly committed by Edison against Mr. Naliponguit prior
to, contemporaneously with, or subsequently after the signing of the above-mentioned
MOA and/or consequent project implementations.

Defendant’s Claim

In its answer ad cautela, defendants interposed the following defenses:

1. That the Plaintiffs lack any cause of action against the defendants since
Honorable Court failed to acquire Jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants due
to the defective substituted service of summons effected Sheriff Edwin Macabaya;

2. That the Plaintiffs failed to state their causes of action considering that Mr.
Ian Daryll B. Magat, the signatory of the Subcontracting Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) with Mr. Wilt F. Naliponguit, was never an employee of Edison, there being
no official record evidencing this fact, nor was he a legitimate Attorney-in fact of
Edison since the Special Power of Attorney his authority deemed emanate was
fictitious, fraudulent, forged and falsified as strongly asserted by the supposed issuer,
Mr. Elpidio Uy, through his sworn statement or even by mere cursory examination,
thereby avoiding all documents, deeds and agreements produced by the same,
including the above mentioned MOA;

3. That Edison moved to drop Mr. Eldonn Ferdinand Uy as defendant of the case
since he is not a proper proper party in interest considering that Edison is a sole
proprietorship owned and registered under the name of Elpidio Uy creating, therefore,
no legal link between the plaintiffs and Mr. Eldonn Ferdinand Uy;

4. That the defendants unnecessarily suffered damages and vindicated the same
through its compulsory counter claim and demand for payment of damages, to wit:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/573285…2d02f919aadd27616cf1a560ce273320b30c5e30622015e8a31 07/08/2019, 11A44 AM

Page 3 of 6
 a) Damages due to the improper and excessive enforcement of the order of
attachment and to the derogatory, malicious and libelous filing of the
complaint - Php 20,000,000.00;
b) Moral Damages due to the baseless and unfounded complaint - Php
50,000,000.00;
c) Exemplary Damages to discourage frivolous complaints - Php 20,000,000.00;
d) Attorney’s fees - 10% of all monetary award.

PROPOSED AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Edison is willing to settle the case amicably based on the terms that are
reasonable and consistent with the proffered its answer. It is likewise open to submit
the case for alternative mode of dispute resolution.

SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS

Based on the pleadings of plaintiffs and defendants, the following are the
admitted facts:

1. That Edison is sole proprietorship; and

2. That Oro Solid Hardware is a domestic corporation;

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

1. That Edison possessed no record of employment of Ian Daryll B. Magat;

2. That Ian Daryll B. Magat is a resident of # 2405 St. John the Baptist Street,
Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City at the time the alleged Special Power of Attorney
was executed and not at # 121 Le Mireche Subdivision, E. Rodriquez, Quezon City he
indicated therein;

3. That Mr. Magat was arrested for a the crime of forgery and falsification and
presently under bail;

4. That Edison has no official record of business dealings with ATK Builders,
nor with Mr. Nalipongit prior to or at the time the complaint was filed;

5. That the Special Power of Attorney appointing Mr. Ian Daryll B. Magat as
attorney-in-fact of Edison was contested in a criminal case as: spurious, fictitious,
fraudulent, falsified and forged;

6. That the Memorandum of Agreement entered into between Mr. Ian Daryll B.
Magat and ATK Builders, through Mr. Wilt F. Naliponguit, was acknowledged and
notarized wanting of any proof of identification of both parties presented before
notary public;

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/573285…2d02f919aadd27616cf1a560ce273320b30c5e30622015e8a31 07/08/2019, 11A44 AM

Page 4 of 6
 7. That Oro Solid Hardware, Inc. voluntarily, freely and unconditionally
accepted the offer of full payment of Mr. Naliponguit of his supposed outstanding
debt with same via the deed of assignment the latter executed in favor of the former;

8. That Mr. Cipriano Puyo possessed no Special Power of Attorney issued by

Mr. Naliponguit to prosecute the latter’s case and that he is an exclusive attorney-in-
fact of Oro Solid Hardware, Inc. as far as this particular case is concerned;

9. That Mr. Eldonn Ferdinand Uy was and is not the registered owner of Edison
since the same is a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Elpidio and registered under this
name;

10. That the original application for the preliminary writ of attachment was
denied by the original Judge of the case, the Honorable Judge Emmanuel Pasal, based
on insufficiency of evidence and for failing the meet all the requisites for its issuance
under the Rules of Court;

11. That the two bounced checks presented as evidence supporting the issuance
of the writ of preliminary attachment were dated February 13 and 18, 2015 or on or
about the same date the questioned Memorandum of Agreement was notarized which
was on February 13, 2015, hence prior to the commencement of the supposed project
implementation;

12. That the certification issued by the District Engineer of Misamis Oriental
pertaining to the completion rate of specified projects of Edison is not indicative, nor
a conclusive proof of the alleged subcontracting agreement between ATK Builders
and Edison;

13. That the total value of the properties attached or levied exceeded the
amounted to more than Php 14,000,000.00;

14. That the defendants posted a counter bond in cash amounting to Php
8,000,000.00 while the plaintiff bought only an attachment bond with Alpha
Insurance and paid a total premium of 128,000.00 to enforce the writ of attachment;

15. That the attached vehicles were delivered and stored at a storage yard
owned by the plaintiffs; and

16. That the attached vehicles sustained various damages while under custody
of the Sheriff and/or the plaintiff.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not Mr. Eldonn Ferdinand Uy is a real party in interest in this

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/573285…2d02f919aadd27616cf1a560ce273320b30c5e30622015e8a31 07/08/2019, 11A44 AM

Page 5 of 6
 particular case;

2. Whether or not Mr. Elpidio Uy executed a Special Power of Attorney making Mr.
Ian Daryll B. Magat his attorney-in-fact in contracting a subcontracting MOA;

3. Whether or not the Pending Criminal Cases filed against:

a) Mr. Ian Daryll B. Magat for falsification of public document by private

persons; and

b) Mr. Wilt F. Naliponguit and Oro Solid Hardware for Introducing falsified
documents in civil cases

are classified as prejudicial questions, the resolution of which considered as

condition sine qua non for the continued hearing of this civil case;

4. Whether or not a defectively notarized Memorandum of Agreement can be

regarded as a public document, thereby binding third persons as to the agreement
between the private parties therein;

5. Whether or not the document entitled “Deed of Assignment of Receivables”

executed by Mr. Wilt F. Naliponguit in favor of Oro Solid Hardware, Inc. is, in fact
and in law, a Deed of Conventional Subrogation requiring the agreement of all the
parties (debtor, subrogor and subrogee) to be valid as to form and substance;

6. Whether or not the two bounced checks drawn and dated on the same day the
alleged subcontracting MOA was notarized, February 15, 2015, can be appreciated as
evidence of Edison’s indebtedness to Mr. Naliponguit for the future works he will
perform as a project subcontractor of the former and considered as a badge of fraud
warranting the proper issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment;

7. Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment, the ex parte application of

which was heard on the merits by the original RTC Judge handling the case who, for
insufficient evidence, properly denied the same, can still be reversed by a subsequent
RTC Judge who, after the original RTC Judge inhibited himself from the case, was
presented exactly the same supporting evidence;

That the

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/573285…2d02f919aadd27616cf1a560ce273320b30c5e30622015e8a31 07/08/2019, 11A44 AM

Page 6 of 6