Republic of the Philippines
First Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 2
City of San Fernando, La Union
MONA L. PAPA
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 12345
For: DAMAGES BASED ON
BREACH OF THE CONTRACT
OF CARRIAGE
-versus
NESTOR POL,
Defendant.
X------------------------------------------X
ANSWER
(TO COMPLAINT OF DAMAGES BASED
ON BREACH OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE)
Comes now, the defendant, by the undersigned counsel, and in answer
to Plaintiff’s complaint, respectfully alleges:
ADMISSIONS / DENIALS
1. That defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
Complaint with the additional averment that he may be served with
all court processes through the undersigned counsel;
2. That defendant admits paragraph 6 but denies paragraph 7, as its
driver Yapit had observed an utmost and extraordinary care and
diligence to ensure the safety of its passengers, which was
established in the Philippine National Police report regarding the
said unfortunate accident whereby the report clearly stated that it
was the truck that went into the PUJ’s lane and the PUJ had no
other way to avoid the incoming accident as they were situated in a
bridge where there was no shoulder or any other space to avoid
collision;
3. That defendant admits paragraph 8 and 9 being a fact established
in the Certificate of Death and Police Report;
4. That paragraph 10 is denied for lack of basis to form a belief as to
their truth and veracity there being no proof shown to substantiate
them;
5. That defendant denies paragraph 11 and 13 for being
unsubstantiated and merely formed by the whims of the heirs of the
deceased, the truth being that no evidence was presented to prove
the same;
6. That defendant denies paragraphs 12 and 14 as the figures
mentioned are unsubstantiated and that the purported documents
in support thereof were not properly referenced. As such,
defendant will have no basis in forming any judgment as to their
authenticity and veracity;
AFFIRMATIVE / NEGATIVE DEFENSES
7. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incoporates by reference all the
foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that
the Complaint should be dismissed because:
7.1 There is lack of cause of action because there is no breach
of contract of carriage.
ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and
1755.
The defendant’s authorized driver was duty bound to carry its
passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can
provide, with utmost diligence of a very cautious person, and
with due regard for all the circumstances from the point of his
origin to his destination. The drives was also dutifully chosen by
defendant as herein attached will prove the same:
Annex 1 shows the authorized driver is a holder of a valid
driver’s license;
Annex 2 is a medical certificate that proves the physical fitness
of the driver for his job;
Furthermore, Annex 3 is a compilation of receipts of the
jeepney’s timely and routinary maintenance and check up to
ensure its safe running in the roads.
It is clear, therefore, that extraordinary diligence was excercised
by defendant in making sure that passengers who avail the
services of his public utility jeepney are carried safely to and
from their respective destinations.
7.2 The claims are unsubstantiated and baseless.
The following claims are unsubstantiated and therefore
baseless:
Hospital Expenses, Funeral Fees (Php 200,000.00): Alleged
supporting documents are not found or improperly referenced.
Lost Income (Php 1,188,000.00): There are no supporting
documents presented and proof of how such sum was derived.
Moral and Exemplary Damages (Php 130,000.00): There are
supporting documents such as medical certificates or
psychological evaluation proving the emotional suffering of the
heirs of the deceased. The actual damages being
unsubstantiated, claims of moral and exemplary damages are
left without basis.
7.3 Exorbitant and Unconscionable Legal Fees
The claim for Attorney’s Fees (Php 50,000.00) is not only
baseless. The amount is unconscionable and exorbitant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premised considered, it is respectfully prayed that this
honorable Court render judgment as follows:
1. DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and for being
baseless;
2. DISMISS the complaint for lack of cause of action;
3. GRANT such other relief consistent with law and equity and for
costs.
This 3rd of Novermber 2019 at City of San Fernando, La Union,
Philippines.
By:
ATTY. ROSSETTE S. ANASARIO and ATTY. VICTORIA NELLE N.
OJALES
Counsels for the Plaintiff
ABC Law Firm, Second Floor, Blue Building
City of San Fernando, La Union
Roll of Attorney No. ______
IBP No. ______
PTR No. ______
MCLE No. ______
