REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 60, MANILA

CONRADO C. AGUILAR and

CRISELDA R. AGUILAR,

Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. 7116
-- versus -- For: Award of actual and
exemplary damages,
JARCO MARKETING attorney’s fees and loss of
CORPORATION, income
LEONARDO KONG,
JOSE TIOPE and,
ELISA PANELO
Defendants,

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states that:

1. Plaintiff Conrado Aguilar, is a Filipino, of legal age, and

resident Makati City; Plaintiff Criselda R. Aguilar, is a Filipino, of legal
age, and resident Makati City; Plaintiffs are the parents of Zhieneth
Aguilar; defendant Jarco Marketing Corporation, is a Filipino
Corporation, organized and incorporated under the Philippine laws,
owner of the Syvel’s Department Store. Defendants Leonardo Kong,
Jose Tiope and Elisa Panelo are also Filipinos, of legal age, are the
store's branch manager, operations manager, and supervisor,
respectively,and are residents of Makati City, where they may be
served with summons and other processes;

2. In the afternoon of 9 May 1983, CRISELDA and ZHIENETH

were at the 2nd floor of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City.
CRISELDA was signing her credit card slip at the payment and
verification counter when she felt a sudden gust of wind and heard a
loud thud. She looked behind her. She then beheld her daughter
ZHIENETH on the floor, her young body pinned by the bulk of the
store's gift-wrapping counter/structure. ZHIENETH was crying and
screaming for help. Although shocked, CRISELDA was quick to ask
the assistance of the people around in lifting the counter and
retrieving ZHIENETH from the floor. ZHIENETH was quickly rushed
to the Makati Medical Center where she was operated on. The next
day ZHIENETH lost her speech and thereafter communicated with
CRISELDA by writing on a magic slate. The injuries she sustained
took their toil on her young body. She died fourteen (14) days after
the accident or on 22 May 1983, on the hospital bed. She was six
years old.

3. The cause of her death was attributed to the injuries she

sustained from the collapse of the defendants gift-wrapping counter
the maintenance of which is under the supervision and control of the
defendants. The provisional medical certificate issued by
ZHIENETH's attending doctor described the extent of her injuries:

Diagnoses:
1. Shock, severe, sec. to intra-abdominal injuries due to blunt injury
2. Hemorrhage, massive, intraperitoneal sec. to laceration, (L) lobe
liver
3. Rupture, stomach, anterior & posterior walls
4. Complete transection, 4th position, duodenum
5. Hematoma, extensive, retroperitoneal
6. Contusion, lungs, severe
After the burial of their daughter, plaintiffs demanded upon petitioners
the reimbursement of the hospitalization, medical bills and wake and
funeral expenses which they had incurred. Defendants refused to
pay.

4. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in his

favor through a Decision directing defendant to pay ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO
PESOS AND EIGHTY-SIX CENTAVOS (P157,522.86) for actual
damages, THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000) for
moral damages, TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000) for
attorney's fees and an unspecified amount for loss of income and
exemplary damages caused by the negligence of Jarco Marketing
Corporation and it's management resulting to the death of ZHIENITH.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Quezon City for Makati;

(Sgd.)
KENDRICK BARCENA
Counsel for Plaintiff
12345 Camp Crame
Quezon City
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Conrado C. Aguilar together with my spouse Criselda R.

Aguilar , of legal age, do hereby state that: We caused this Complaint
to be prepared; We have read its contents and affirm that they are
true and correct to the best of our personal knowledge;We hereby
certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before any
court involving the same parties and the same issue and that, should
I learn of such a case, I shall notify the court within five (5) days from
my notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on

______xxx_______.

(Sgd.) C.K. HILFIGER

A.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of

_____Makati__________ on this day of _________Xxx________,
affiant exhibiting before me his community tax certificate no.
_______________ issued on __________________ at
_____________________.

(Sgd.) N. O.
TARIO
Notary Public

Until______________
____
PTR No.
_______________
Issued at
______________
On
___________________

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2007.
 Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 60, Manila City

LAKISA LAYAW,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 7716
- versus -

LAKISA HIRAP,
Defendant.
x ------------------------------------- x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF Commented [FG2]: NOTE: There is no need to

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully submits her Pre-Trial
Brief, as follows:
I. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT
1.1. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable
and a reciprocal manifestation of openness from plaintiff, defendant is
open to the possibility of amicably settling this dispute.
attach a Notice of Hearing for a Pre-Trial Brief.
Also, pre-trial is now mandatory in criminal
cases under Rule 118, 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure as well as under RA 8493 (The Speedy
Trial Act), although neither the law nor the Rules
require the submission of a Pre-Trial Brief in
criminal cases (in practice, courts also do not
require the submission of a pre-trial brief in
criminal cases). Consequently, the requirement of
a pre-trial brief and the consequences for failure
to submit one (e.g., non-suit or dismissal) appear
to pertain exclusively to civil cases.
Commented [FG3]: This is a new requirement
imposed by the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.

1.2. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure, defendant respectfully submits that the desired terms of
any amicable settlement would involve, first, a clarification of the
actual extent of any obligation due and owing to plaintiff inasmuch as
there is nothing to indicate defendant’s obligations to plaintiff and,
second, a schedule of payments.

II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

2.1. Plaintiff seeks principally to recover the amount of Twenty

Two Million Eight Hundred Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Forty
Eight Pesos and Thirty Centavos (PHP22,818,948.30) with interest at
twelve percent (12%) arising allegedly from unpaid orders delivered
to defendant variously in 1989.

2.2. Defendant resists plaintiff’s claims based on a failure to

state a cause of action because of :
 2.2.1. Plaintiff’s lack of personality to sue and,
therefore, not being the real party in interest under Rule
3, section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;

2.2.2. Extinguishment of the alleged claim made by

the entity Regency Furniture.

2.3. Defendant also interposed a compulsory counterclaim for

Two Million Pesos (PHP2,000,000.00) for moral damages and Two
Million Pesos (PHP2,000,000.00) for exemplary damages and One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP100,000.00) as attorney’s fees.

III. FACTS AND OTHER MATTERS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES

[3] 3.1. Defendant admits only those facts stated in her

Answer, i.e., her personal circumstances, receipt of the demand letter
dated January 5, 1997 and her reply to the demand letter.

3.2. Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of additional

facts from plaintiff during pre-trial or even thereafter, defendant
admits no other facts stated in the Complaint.

IV. ISSUES TO BE TRIED

[4] 4.1. Defendant submits that the following issues put forward
by plaintiff are subject to proof:

4.1.1. Plaintiff’s personality to seek legal relief;

4.1.2. Plaintiff’s entitlement to the amount claimed;

4.2. Defendant submits that the following issues she put

forward are subject to proof:

4.2.1. Plaintiff’s bad faith in filing this suit;

4.2.2. Defendant’s entitlement to the claims made
in her Compulsory Counterclaim as a result of plaintiff’s
bad faith;

V. EVIDENCE

[6] 5.1. Defendant intends to present the following witnesses:

5.1.1. Defendant herself, who will testify on the true

circumstances leading to the filing of this suit against her;

5.1.2. An employee of Topless Enterprises with

personal knowledge as to the true circumstances behind
the alleged obligations due and owing in favor of plaintiff.
 [5] 5.2. Defendant reserves the right to present any and all
documentary evidence which shall become relevant to rebut plaintiff’s
claims in the course of trial as well as any other witnesses whose
testimony will become relevant to belie plaintiff’s witnesses, if
necessary.

VI. RESORT TO DISCOVERY

[7] 6.1. Considering the relatively simple issues presented,

defendant does not intend to avail of discovery at this time.

6.2. Subject, however, to a concrete and reasonable request

for discovery from plaintiff, defendant reserves the right to resort to
discovery before trial.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City; 13 April 2007.

(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERE

Counsel for Defendant
[Address]

Copy furnished:

Atty. MA BOLA
Counsel for Plaintiff