Scribd
Upload
56 views5 pages

Agustin - Torts Finals - Part 2 PDF

1. Robin Coviduvidapdap filed a complaint against Goliath Department Store for damages arising from injuries sustained from falling shelves in the store. Goliath Department Store denies liability and files a counterclaim against Robin. 2. Goliath Department Store denies most of the allegations in the complaint and provides evidence through annexes to support its defenses that Robin's actions caused the incident. 3. In its counterclaim, Goliath Department Store seeks moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and reimbursement for the cost of damaged property from Robin, alleging that Robin's suit was frivolous and caused public humiliation.

Uploaded by

Lincy Jane Agustin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views5 pages

Agustin - Torts Finals - Part 2 PDF

1. Robin Coviduvidapdap filed a complaint against Goliath Department Store for damages arising from injuries sustained from falling shelves in the store. Goliath Department Store denies liability and files a counterclaim against Robin. 2. Goliath Department Store denies most of the allegations in the complaint and provides evidence through annexes to support its defenses that Robin's actions caused the incident. 3. In its counterclaim, Goliath Department Store seeks moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and reimbursement for the cost of damaged property from Robin, alleging that Robin's suit was frivolous and caused public humiliation.

Uploaded by

Lincy Jane Agustin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Quezon City, Branch 226

ROBIN COVIDUVIDAPDAP,
Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 98765432


GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE , For: Damages

Represented by owner Barney


Stinson,

Defendants.
x------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE, through the undersigned counsel,


most respectfully file their Answer in response to the Complaint of Plaintiff
ROBIN COVIDUVIDAPDAP and interpose as well a counterclaim against the
latter, to wit:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE admits the contents of


paragraph 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the complaint but only insofar as it states the names,
status, and residences of the parties but specifically denies the rest thereof for
lack of knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief as to its truth or
falseness.

2. Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE denies paragraph 9 insofar as


the availability of the Yakitate Mini-oven in their store since they never retailed
Yakitate Mini-oven. The copy of the purchased agreements and surplus inventory
are attached as Annex “A” and “B”, respectively, to form as integral part hereof
as in the case of the other annexes.

3. Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE denies the allegation in


paragraph 14 specifically the height of the store shelf being 6 feet, since it is
prohibited for mall owners to put shelves with a height above 5 feet. This rule is
of Mall Association Owners of the Philippines (MAOP) is agreed for safety
purposes. A copy of the agreement compliance is attached as Annex “C”.

4. Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE denies the allegation in


paragraphs 15 and 17 insofar as the allegations that Lily Aldridge is an employee

1
of the defendant. Lily Aldridge is not an employee of the Defendant. A copy of
list of employees during the date of incident is attached as Annex “D”.

5. Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE denies the allegation in


paragraph 6. The truth of the matter is as follows:

5.1 That knowing that Yakitate Mini-oven is not available; the Plaintiff
ROBIN COVIDUVIDAPDAP became violent and irritated. The Plaintiff
suddenly pushed the shelves causing the fell of the appliances to her and
other customers. A copy of the CCTV video of the incident is attached
herein as Annex “E”.

5.2 That other customers were injured and suffered body discomforts
due to the collapse of the shelves and fall of the kitchen wares.

5.3 That the personal properties of Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT


STORE were ruined and destroyed. The loss amounting to ₱150,000.00,
attached as Annex “F”.

6. The rest of the allegation in paragraphs 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of
the Complaint for the reasons stated in the Affirmative and Negative Defenses
below.

7. Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE denies the rest of allegations


stated in the Complaint for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a
reasonable belief thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

8. The Complaint filed by Plaintiff ROBIN COVIDUVIDAPDAP is nothing but a


malicious lawsuit calculated to harass the Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT
STORE.

9. A similar Complaint for damages was filed by herein Plaintiff ROBIN


COVIDUVIDAPDAP against Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 24 by Civil Case No. 123456. A copy
of the order is herein attached as Annex “G”.

10. In the case of Zamora v. Quinan, G.R. No. G.R. No. 216139, the
Supreme Court held:

“Forum shopping can be committed by filing multiple cases based on the


same cause of action but with different prayers, while the previous case
not having been resolved yet.”

11. With all due respect, Plaintiff’s commission of forum shopping alone is a
ground to dismiss the complaint outright.

2
12. Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled sustaining this basic rule. It
is therefor respectfully submitted that the instant complaint be dismissed
outright. One example is in the case of Prubankers Association v. Prudential
Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 131247, wherein the High Court said:

“As to commission of forum shopping, a violation of the rule shall


constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the summary
dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate
action against the counsel or party concerned.”

13. Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE complies with standard rules


and regulations for shopping malls and retail stores. A copy of certificate of
safety compliance is attached as Annex “I”.

14. Thus Plaintiff ROBIN COVIDUVIDAPDAP has no cause of action against


Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE because the latter observed not only
ordinary diligence, but also the highest degree of diligence in ensuring the safety
of the store employees and its customers.

15. Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE is not the employer of Lily


Aldridge. The latter is also just a customer who helped Plaintiff ROBIN
COVIDUVIDAPDAP.

16. Therefore Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE is not solidary liable


for to pay for damages under vicarious liability.

17. From the foregoing, it was actually Plaintiff ROBIN COVIDUVIDAPDAP who
violated the safety of others. It was she who violated the law thereby causing
damages to others. With all due respect, it is she who must actually pay.

COUNTERCLAIM

18. As CUMPOLSARY CLAIMS against the Plaintiff ROBIN COVIDUVIDAPDAP,


Defendant GOLIATH DEPARTMENT STORE alleges:

18.1. That to protect its rights by virtue of this unwarranted and


malicious act initiated by the plaintiff; thus, it incurred and will necessarily
incur attorney’s fees in the sum of at least ₱100,000.00 and expenses of
litigation and costs of suit in the sum of at least ₱200,000.00.

18.2. That plaintiff’s unfounded and frivolous suit has caused the
defendant’s public humiliation and embarrassment in the business realm,
for which it claims moral damages of ₱200,000.00 and exemplary
damages of ₱100,000.00.

TIMELINESS
19. That this ANSWER is submitted seasonably, or within the 30 days from the
date of receipt of January 22, 2020, today being February 14, 2020.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court render judgment as follows:

3
1. DISMISS the complaint due to commission of forum- shopping;

2. DISMISS the complaint for lack of cause of action;

3. DISMISS the complaint for lack of merit and for being baseless;

4. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant ₱150,000.00 for the damages of


the properties incurred.

5. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant attorney’s fee of ₱100,000.00


plus moral damages of ₱200,000.00 and exemplary damages of
damages of ₱100,000.00; and

6. GRANT such other relief consistent with law and equity, and for costs.

Quezon City, February 14, 2020.

By:

LINCY JANE L. AGUSTIN


IBP Member No. 32709 / 01-01-20 / PPLM
PTR 12345678
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. V-12345 / valid until April 2022

Copy furnished through personal service:

Atty. DOMINIC EMMANUEL ISRAEL G. GALO


Counsel for the plaintiff
HIMYM Law Supports
Unit 5 The Block, SM North Edsa, Quezon City

EXPLANATION

A copy of this ANSWER was served to PLAINTIFF ROBIN


COVIDUVIDAPDAP and her counsel Atty. DOMINIC EMMANUEL ISRAEL
G. GALO through personal service

LINCY JANE L. AGUSTIN

4
VERIFICATION

Defendant Barney Stinson, by himself and as owner of GOLIATH


DEPARTMENT STORE, after having been duly sworn, deposes and states that:

1. That he has caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with


defenses, and the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic records.

2. He further states that the Actionable Document Annex “A” of the


Complaint, is spurious for being fabricated and false.

Executed this 10th day of February, 2020 at City of Manila

Barney Stinson
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the 10th day of February 2020 at the
City of Manila, affiant who is personally known to me has likewise exhibited his
ID with ID No. 2017- 102990 bearing his photograph and signature.

Lincy Jane L. Agustin


Notary Public until 12-31-15
PTR No. 1234567/01-06-15/Manila
IBP Member No. 32709 / 01-01-20 /
Manila
Roll No. 12345
MCLE No. V-12345, Series of 2019,
dated December 27, 2019
13th Floor, New Building, Inuman St.,
Manila.Doc. No. 35

Page No. 28
Book No. 09
Series of 2020.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy