Legal Forms 2007, Prof. Teh

8/8/2019 Legal Forms 2007, Prof. Teh

1/77

PLEADINGS, PETITIONS, MOTIONS AND OTHER JUDICIAL AND LEGAL FORMS

(Revised 2007) 1

THEODORE O. TE 2

Intended for Exclusive Use of the University of the Philippines College of Law BarExamination Candidates for 2007, the Law Interns of U.P. Office of Legal Aid (UP-OLA), and

the students in the authors classes.

Any other use, without permission of the author, is prohibited and all legal rights arereserved.

1 These forms were first published in 1998 for use in the UP Law Bar Ops for that year.2 Assistant Professor and Director, University of the Philippines Office of Legal Aid; Ll.B., U.P. (1990); Gratefulacknowledgement is given to Feliz Marie M. Guerrero, Ll.B. U.P. (2008, expected) for invaluable assistance in re-formatting, proofreading and updating of legal references.


2/77


3/77

c. Mandamus 252. Quo warranto, Interpleader, Quieting of Title, and Declaratory

Relief a. Complaint in Interpleader 26b. Action to Quiet (or Remove Cloud on) Title 27c. Action for Declaratory Relief 28d. Quo Warranto 29

III. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL FORMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDUREA. Complaint-Affidavit and Counter-Affidavit

1. Complaint-Affidavit 302. Counter-Affidavit 31

B. Information and Complaint1. Information (with Certificate of Preliminary Investigation or

Inquest)a. Bigamy 33b. Theft 34

c. Attempted Rape 35d. Frustrated Murder 36C. Motions

1. Motion to Quash Information 372. Motion to Quash Search Warrant 383. Motion to Suppress Evidence 394. Motion for Bail 40

D. Application for Bail 41

IV. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS COMMON TO CIVIL ANDCRIMINAL PROCEDUREA. Offer of Evidence and Opposition/Comment to Offer

1. Formal Offer of Evidence 422. Comment/Opposition to Offer 43

B. Demurrer to the Evidence1. Criminal cases 442. Civil cases 45

C. Notice of Lis Pendens 46D. Appearance as Counsel 47E. Withdrawal as Counsel

1. Withdrawal with conformity of client 482. Withdrawal without conformity of client 48

F. Substitution of Counsel 49

G. Notice of Appeal 49

V. PLEADINGS AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS ON DOMESTIC CASES ANDSPECIAL PROCEEDINGSA. Petition for Habeas Corpus 50B. Petition for Adoption 51C. Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with Application for 52

iii


4/77

Provisional OrdersD. Petition for Probate of Holographic Will 54

VI. DEEDS, CONTRACTS AND OTHER CORPORATE LEGAL DOCUMENTSA. Special Power of Attorney 55B. General Power of Attorney 55C. Contract of Lease 56D. Holographic Will 57E. Notarial Will 57F. Attestation Clause for a Notarial Will 58G. Acknowledgement of a Notarial Will 58H. Donation Inter Vivos 59I. Acknowledgment of Nominee Status with Assignment of Shares 60

J. Secretarys Certificate 61K. Board Resolutions

1. Authority to Act 612. Increase in number of directors and necessary amendment to the

Articles of Incorporation 61L. Deed of Assignment 62M. Deed of Sale of Registered Land (unilateral) 63N. Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land (unilateral) 64O. Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro (bilateral) 65P. Deed of Repurchase of land sold under Pacto de Retro 66Q. Deed of Sale with Mortgage 67R. Dacion en Pago (Deed of Assignment of Real Estate in payment of

debt) 68S. Chattel Mortgage 69

VII. APPEALS AND OTHER RESORTS TO APPELLATE COURTS IN CRIMINALAND CIVIL PROCEDUREA. Ordinary Appeals

1. in civil cases 70a. from MTC (in original jurisdiction) to RTC (in appellate

jurisdiction) 70b. from RTC (in original jurisdiction) to CA 70

2. in criminal casesa. from MTC (as trial court) to RTC (in appellate jurisdiction) 70b. from RTC (as trial court) to CA 70c. from RTC (as trial court) to SC 70

B. Petitions for Review

1. from RTC (as appellate court) or from quasi-judicial agencies toCA 712. from RTC (on pure questions of law) or CA (in appellate

jurisdiction) to SC 71

iv


5/77

ON WRITING, LEGALLY

Therefore, its name was called Babel, becausethere the Lord confused the language of all theearth. Genesis, 11:9, ESV

If brevity is the soul of wit, what now is to become of lawyers (and law students) whowould nonchalantly write a 100-page document and dare call it a Brief?

The traditional notion of legal writing is that it is a competition to put together as manyfour to five-syllable words in a one-paragraph sentence. The language of the law mystifies andwith this comes the power of the lawyer. The more obscure and obtuse the language, the greater the need for a lawyer.

History has given us many language handicaps and obstacles to clarity and precision.Throughout four years of law school, the law student, who eventually becomes a lawyer, istrained to think in archaic words and phraseslegalesewhich appear to have legal significance

but is actually too imprecise to help anyone understand what is going on. And to add to the babelish situation, there are hundreds of words in a dead languageLatinthat have littlerelevance to the contemporary world.

There is a sea change, however, going on in legal writing. More and more, pleaders areasked to be clear and concise, precise not pedantic. Why waste five words when three will do? 3

But change, as always, is difficult and painful. Yet, it is an essential response to todays evolvinglegal profession. Indeed, when the most common means now of communicating is text, with itsown subculture and lingo, there must be a re-examination of the archaic manner by which legalwriting presents itself.

What this short introduction to the accompanying handbook of Pleadings, Petitions,Motions and Other Legal and Judicial Forms seeks to do is to put forth the need to write clearlyand concisely, precisely but not pedantically.

When a judges attention span is short and his backlog of reading is long, the need towrite concisely, clearly, precisely but not pedantically becomes absolutely clear.

Writing concisely and not pedantically, however, does not mean that the legal writer ought to cut corners when it comes to substance as well as form; the only thing that thatguarantees is a baleful stare and a rude dismissal from the judge. Not only must the writer knowthe arguments and the bases for his arguments, but she must also realize that these arguments

need to be presented in a manner that is technically sufficient.

3 My favorite, and many of my students will attest to this, is the absolutely archaic Comes Now, the Plaintiff, by theundersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states that as part of every pleading. Why waste 15words, when 6 will do, thus: Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that. The latter loses none of the legalgravitas but loses every bit of the archaic pretense that mystifies the law and perpetuates the notion that laywersknow what they are doing each and every time.

v


6/77

It is hoped that the forms presented here, with checklists 4 of legal requirements and shortannotations, will provide the impetus for demystifying legal writing and legal drafting. Theseforms come from actual forms used in the authors practice, some from worthy opponents andstill some from traditional form books, with updates to fit the current state of the Rules.

While this handbook was produced, primarily, with the bar examinees and the law internor law student in mind, it is hoped that it might prove helpful as well when September ends 5 andlife, as a lawyer, begins in earnest.

Theodore O. Te Room 105, Malcolm Hall

University of the Philippines August 2007

4 Acknowledgment is given to Atty. Alex M. Enriquez, (Ll.B., UP, 1990) for the original template of theChecklists, which have been updated to suit current practice.5 Vide Green Day, Wake Me Up When September Ends, which has become an unofficial anthem for bar examinees in the Philippines.

vi


7/77

I. COMMON FORMSA. Caption and Title

Republic of the PhilippinesNational Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 1, Manila

____________________,Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil CaseNo._______________

For _______________________

______________________,Defendant.

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

B. Prayer

PRAYER

WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed, after notice and hearing, that the defendant beordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of One Million Pesos (Php.1,000,000) for actual andcompensatory damages, Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php.50,000) for moral damages, Fifty

Thousand Pesos (Php.50,000) for exemplary damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos(Php.50,000) for attorneys fees.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

C. Jurat

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of _______________ on this day of _________________, affiant exhibiting before me his community tax certificate no. _______________ issued on __________________ at _____________________.

(Sgd.) N. O. TARIONotary Public

Until __________________ PTR No. _______________ Issued at ______________ On ___________________

Doc. No.Page No.Book No.Series of 2007.

1


8/77

D. Verification

VERIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines )City of _______________ ) s.s.

C.K. Hilfiger, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, deposes andstates that:

1. He is the plaintiff in the pleading/document entitled (pleading/document beingverified)

2. He has caused its preparation3. He has read it and the allegations therein are true and correct of his own

knowledge or based on authentic records.

(Sgd.) C.K. HILFIGER

PLUS: Jurat

NOTE: Pleadings required to be verified1. All pleadings under the Rules of Summary Procedure2. Complaints for

a. Forcible entryb. Unlawful detainerc. Replevin

3. Complaints with application for injunction or attachment4. Answer to complaint or counterclaim based on actionable documents5. Petitions for

a. Certiorarib. Prohibitionc. Mandamusd. Habeas Corpus

e. Change of Name

E. Certification against Forum Shopping

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

Republic of the Philippines )City of _______________ ) s.s.

C.K. Hilfiger, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law deposes and statesthat:

1. He is the plaintiff in the case entitled (title of the case);

2. He certifies that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involvingthe same issues before any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency;3. To the best of his knowledge, there is no such pending action or claim;4. If he should learn that a similar action or claim has been filed or is pending he

shall report such fact within five (5) days from the discovery to this HonorableCourt.


PLUS: Jurat

F. Combined Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, C.K. Hilfiger, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the Chief Executive Office of Alis Di-yan Company and in such capacity, caused this Complaint to be prepared; I haveread its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personalknowledge; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before anycourt 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 _____________.


PLUS: Jurat2


9/77

G. Combined Verification, Certification against Forum Shopping, andStatement of Material Dates

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, C.K. Hilfiger, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the Chief Executive Office of

Alis Di-yan Company and in such capacity, caused this Complaint to be prepared; I havereceived a copy of the [Order/Resolution/Decision] of the Court on 13 April 2007; I have readits contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personalknowledge; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before anycourt 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 _____________.

(Sgd.) C.K. HILFIGERPLUS: Jurat

H. Request for and Notice of hearingREQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURTMetropolitan Trial CourtQuezon City, Branch 39

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approvalimmediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same in the courts calendar forhearing on Friday, 13 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

ATTICUS FINCH

1 MockingBird Street Timog Avenue, Quezon City

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on Friday, 13 April 2007 at8:30 in the morning.

(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for Defendant

2 The FirmLaguna Street, Quezon City

I. Proof of personal service

Copy furnished through personal service:

Atty. Mitch McDeereCounsel for the Defendant2 The FirmLaguna Street, Quezon City

3


10/77

J. Proof of service by registered mail (with Explanation for failure to servepersonally)

Copy furnished through registered mail:Atty. Mitch McDeereCounsel for the Defendant

2 The FirmLaguna Street, Quezon CityRegistry Receipt No. ________ Post Office ________________ Date _____________________

EXPLANATION

The foregoing (designation of pleading, motion, etc.) and its attachment were servedon Atty. Mitch McDeere by registered mail instead of personal service as counsel forpetitioner only has one messenger and personal service would have resulted in the motionnot being filed on time to the detriment of petitioner.

(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHRepublic of the Philippines )City of _______________ ) s.s.

AFFIDAVIT

I, HARPER LEE, a messenger of Atty. Atticus Finch, with office address at __________________, after being duly sworn, deposes and states:

That on ______________________, I served a copy of the following pleadings/papers byregistered mail in accordance with Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court:

Nature of Pleading/Paper ________________________ ________________________

in Case No. _________________ entitled ____________________ by depositing a copy in the postoffice in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to (name of party or his/her attorney) at

_______________ with postage fully paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. _____________________ attached and with instructions to the post master to return the mail tosender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Affidavit on 13 April 2007, inthe City of Manila, Philippines.

(Sgd.) HARPER LEEAffiant

PLUS: Jurat

K. Place, date, signature, address, Roll number, IBP receipt number, PTRnumber

City of Manila, 13 April 2007.

Atty. Mitch McDeereCounsel for the Defendant2 The Firm, Laguna Street,Quezon City, Metro ManilaRoll No.IBP OR No., date and place of issuePTR OR No., date and place of issue

4


11/77

L. Acknowledgment

Republic of the Philippines )City of Manila ) s.s.

BEFORE ME, this 13 th day of April, 2007 in the City of Manila, Philippines, personally

appeared ATTICUS FINCH, with [Valid Identification Document] (Drivers License No. N25-07-007777) issued by the [official agency] (Land Transportation Office) on 10 January 2007,known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument, and whoacknowledged to me that the same is his free act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day,year and place written.

(Sgd.) N. O. TARIONotary Public

Until __________________ PTR No. _______________ Issued at ______________

On ___________________ Doc. No.Page No.Book No.Series of 2007

NOTE: If the instrument consists of 2 or more pages, include the following after the 1 stparagraph:

This instrument, consisting of ___ pages, including the page on which thisacknowledgment is written, has been signed on the left margin of each and every pagethereof by ___________ and his witnesses (if any), and sealed with my Notarial seal.

NOTE: If the instrument conveys 2 or more parcels of land, include the following after the 1 stparagraph:

This instrument relates to the sale (or mortgage) of ___ parcels of land, and consistsof ___ pages including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, each and everypage of which, on the left margin, having been signed by ______________ and his witnesses (if any), and sealed with my Notarial seal.

M. Notice of Appeal

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Defendant, ABC, by counsel, respectfully appeals to this Honorable Court theDecision of the lower court dated 13 April 2007, a copy of which he received on 26 April2007.

Quezon City, 2 May 2007.



5


12/77

II. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDUREA. Complaint (and other initiatory pleadings)

1. Complaint for ejectment with damages

[1] Regional Trial CourtNational Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTQuezon City, Branch 33

ALIS DI-YAN COMPANY,Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 2222- versus - For: Ejectment

YOKO NGA,Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states that:

[2] 1. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of France with business address at 111 Ocean Drive, Tuna Compound, Quezon City; Defendantis a Filipino, of legal age, single and currently resident of 112 Ocean Drive, Tuna Compound,Quezon City, where he may be served with summons and other pertinent processes.

[3] 2. Plaintiff owns that property located at 112 Ocean Drive, Tuna Compound,Quezon City which it leased to defendant under the terms and conditions stated in theContract of Lease dated 1 January 2005, which contract expires on 31 December 2006. Acopy of the contract is attached as ANNEX A.

3. Upon expiration of the contract, plaintiff informed defendant of its intention not torenew the lease as it would use the property for its business expansion; plaintiff then askeddefendant to vacate the premises. A copy of plaintiffs letter to defendant is attached asANNEX B.

[4] 4. Despite demand duly made and received, defendant has refused to vacate thepremises and continues to occupy the property without plaintiffs consent. Resort to theBarangay conciliation system proved useless as defendant refused to appear before theLupong Tagapamayapa. A Certification to File Action is attached as ANNEX C .

5. Defendants act of dispossession has caused plaintiff to suffer material injurybecause plaintiffs business expansion plans could not be implemented despite the arrival of machineries specifically leased for this purpose at the rental rate of US$500 per month.

Defendants continued occupation of the premises has also forced plaintiff to sue and toincur legal expenses amounting to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

[5] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in its favor by orderingdefendant to vacate the property and peacefully turn over possession to plaintiff and fordefendant to pay plaintiff the amount of US$3,500 representing rentals on the machineriesfor seven (7) months and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for Attorneys fees.


[6] Quezon City; 13 April 2007.

[7] (Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHCounsel for Plaintiff

[Address]

PLUS:1. [8] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping2. Jurat

6


13/77

2. Complaint for sum of money

[1] Republic of the PhilippinesNational Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTBranch 101, Makati City

ESTA PADORA,Plaintiff,Civil Case No. 000882

- versus - For: Sum of Money

MANGGA GANTSO,Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT


[2] 1. Plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, and resident of 6750 Forbes Park, MakatiCity; defendant is also a Filipino, of legal age and resident of 6752, Forbes Park, Makati City,where he may be served with summons and other processes.

[3] 2. Sometime in January 2005 and over a period of six (6) months, defendantborrowed certain amounts from plaintiff. Defendant promised to pay these amounts on aninstallment basis monthly. These amounts now total Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos(P900,000.00).

[4] 3. Despite repeated demands, both oral and written, defendant failed or hasrefused to pay any amount to plaintiff as no installment payment has even been made. Acopy each of plaintiffs two (2) demand letters is attached as ANNEX A and B.

4. Resort to the Barangay Conciliation process proved fruitless as defendant failed toappear, despite notice on him to appear. Thus, a Certification to File Action, a copy of whichis attached as ANNEX C, was issued by the Barangay Chairman.

5. Defendants obligation is due and demandable and plaintiff is entitled to thepayment of the entire amount of Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00) plus legalinterest.

6. By reason of defendants unreasonable failure or refusal to pay his due anddemandable obligation, plaintiff was forced to engage the services of counsel to vindicatehis rights thereby committing himself to pay legal expenses amounting to Fifty ThousandPesos (P50,000.00).

[5] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in his favor through aDecision directing defendant to pay him NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P900,000.00),with legal interest, as ACTUAL DAMAGES and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) asAttorneys Fees.


[6] Quezon City for Makati; 13 April 2007.


[Address]

PLUS: [8] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

7


14/77

3. Complaint for Replevin


REGIONAL TRIAL COURTBranch 101, Makati City

HURTS RENT-A-CAR,represented by AKIN NAYAN,

Plaintiff,Civil Case No. 000088

- versus -

YOKO NGA,Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:[2] 1. Plaintiff is the general manager of Hurts Rent-A-Car with offices at Makati City;

defendant is a Tongan, temporarily residing at Bayview Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Manila.

[3] 2. Hurts Rent-A-Car is the registered owner of a Honda CRV with license platenumber XLV-675, which defendant, on 3 March 2005, rented from plaintiff for a period of one (1) week.

[4] 3. On 15 March 2005, plaintiff demanded from defendant the return of the carbut defendant failed and refused to do so.

4. The car has not been taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law nor has

it been seized on execution or attachment. Its present value is approximately Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00).

5. Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to give bond in defendants name in double thevalue of the property for the return of the property to defendant should that be adjudged orfor the payment of such sum that defendant may recover from plaintiff in this action.

[5] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that the writ of replevin issue directingthe Sheriff or any other authorized officer to take possession of the car and dispose of it inaccordance with the Rules of Court and, after hearing, judgment be rendered declaringplaintiff to be lawfully entitled to the possession of the car and sentencing defendant to payits value.

[6] Quezon City for Makati City; 13 April 2007.

[7] (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for the Plaintiff

[Address]


8


15/77

4. Complaint to set period of years for lease


REGIONAL TRIAL COURTBranch 161, Pasig City

NANG UUPA,Plaintiff,Civil Case No. 00111

- versus -

NAGPA PAUPA,Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT


[2] 1. Plaintiff and Defendant are both Filipino citizens and of legal age; plaintiff resides at 1-A, Cruz Street, Pasig City while defendant resides at 2 Frisco Street, Pasig City,where he may be served with summons.

[3] 2. On 1 January 2003, defendant leased to plaintiff the premises at 1-A CruzStreet, Pasig City for a monthly rental of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) to be paid withinthe first five (5) days of each month.

3. There is no fixed period for the lease agreement except that rentals are to be paidby the month.

[4] 4. Plaintiff has been paying the rentals as they fall due each month, without fail.However, on 4 April 2006, defendant gave notice to plaintiff that he is terminating the lease

agreement by the end of August 2006.5. Considering that the period of lease has not been fixed, this Honorable Court may

fix a longer period of time as the lessee has been occupying the place for a period of three(3) years. A period of two (2) years is reasonable considering that the lessee has no place totransfer to immediately and that he has introduced substantial improvements to thepremises amounting to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

[5] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court fix a period of years for the lease between plaintiff and defendant.

[6] Quezon City for Pasig City; 13 April 2007.


[Address]


9


16/77

B. Answer with affirmative defense and counterclaim1. Answer with compulsory counterclaim

[1] Regional Trial CourtNational Capital Judicial RegionMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

Branch 33, Quezon City

ALIS DI-YAN COMPANY,Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 2222- versus - For : Ejectment

YOKO NGA,Defendant.

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

ANSWER(With COUNTERCLAIM)

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that:

Admissions/Denials

[2] 1. He admits the contents of paragraph 1 only insofar as his personalcircumstances but specifically denies the contents insofar as plaintiffs personalcircumstances for the reason stated in the Affirmative Defenses below.

2. He admits the contents of paragraph 2 only where it states that a Contract of Lease was entered into but specifically denies that the Contract reflects the true intent of the parties as explained in the Affirmative Defenses below.

3. He admits the contents of paragraph 3 only as to the fact that demand to vacatewas made but specifically denies its contents as to the truth of the reasons for the letter forlack of knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief as to its truth or falseness..

4. He specifically denies the contents of paragraphs 4 to 6 for the reasons stated inthe Affirmative Defenses below.

Affirmative Defenses

[4] 5. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoinginsofar as they are material and additionally submit that the Complaint should be dismissedbecause:

5.1. Plaintiff has no capacity to sue as it is a foreign corporation doingbusiness in the Philippines without a license.

5.2. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action as the Contract of Lease (ANNEX A) was, before its expiration, superceded by a Deed of AbsoluteSale whereby plaintiff sold to defendant the parcel of land in question, a copyof which is attached as ANNEX 1.

Counterclaim

[5] 6. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoinginsofar as they are material and additionally submit that he is entitled to relief arising fromthe filing of this malicious and baseless suit, as follows:

6.1. Moral Damages amounting to One Million Pesos(PHP1,000,000/00) because his name and reputation were besmirched by thismalicious and baseless suit.

6.2. Attorneys Fees amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos(P100,000.00) because he was compelled to secure services of counsel tovindicate his legal rights.

[6] WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that judgment be rendered in hisfavor by dismissing the Complaint and granting defendants counterclaim by awardingdefendant: (a) One Million Pesos as Moral Damages, and (b) Fifty Thousand as AttorneysFees.

10


17/77

Other just and equitable reliefs are prayed for.

[7] Quezon City; 13 April 2007.

[8] (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for Defendant

[Address][9 & 10] VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, YOKO NGA, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the defendant in the case filedby Alis Di-yan Company for ejectment; in response, I have caused the preparation of thisAnswer with Counterclaim; I have read its contents and affirm that they are true and correctto the best of my own personal knowledge; I specifically deny the genuineness and due execution as well as the binding effect of the actionable documents pleaded by plaintiiff ; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before anycourt 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 13 April 2007.

(Sgd.) YOKO NGA

PLUS:1. Jurat (IF any document is denied)2. [11] Proof of Service (personal service or service by registered mail)

11


18/77

2. Answer with counterclaim and cross-claim

See Form No. B-1, supra , but add--

[5] Crossclaim

7. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoinginsofar as they are material and additionally submit that he is entitled to indemnity and/orcontribution from co-defendant MANGGA GANTSO in the event that he is made liable toplaintiff because co-defendant MANGGA GANTSO acted as the duly authorized agent of plaintiff in the sale of the property and, acting as such, received consideration, in the form of the purchase price, from defendant.

[6] WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that judgment be rendered in hisfavor by

1. dismissing the Complaint, and2. granting defendants counterclaim by awarding defendant

a. One Million Pesos (Php.1,000,000) as Moral Damages, and b. Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php.50,000) as Attorneys Fees.

3. In the event that defendant is made liable to plaintiff on the Complaint, he further prays that co-defendant MANGGA GANTSO be made liable to indemnify defendant in the same amount under the Crossclaim .

[7] Quezon City; __________________.

[8] (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for Defendant

[Address]

PLUS:1. [9 & 10] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping2. Jurat (IF document is denied)3. [11] Proof of Service (personal service or service by registered mail)

12


19/77

C. Pre-trial Brief


REGIONAL TRIAL COURTBranch 90, Quezon City

LAKISA LAYAW,Plaintiff,Civil Case No. 97-31312

- versus -

LAKISA HIRAP,Defendant.

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

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully submits her Pre-Trial Brief, as follows:

I. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENTAND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT

1.1. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocalmanifestation of openness from plaintiff, defendant is open to the possibility of amicablysettling this dispute.

[1 & 2] 1.2. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure ,defendant respectfully submits that the desired terms of any amicable settlement wouldinvolve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of any obligation due and owing to plaintiff inasmuch as there is nothing to indicate defendants 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 EightHundred Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight Pesos and Thirty Centavos(PHP22,818,948.30) with interest at twelve percent (12%) arising allegedly from unpaidorders delivered to defendant variously in 1989.

2.2. Defendant resists plaintiffs claims based on a failure to state a cause of actionbecause of :

2.2.1. Plaintiffs lack of personality to sue and, therefore, not being thereal party in interest under Rule 3, section 2 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure ;

2.2.2. Extinguishment of the alleged claim made by the entityRegency 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) forexemplary damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP100,000.00) as attorneys 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 personalcircumstances, receipt of the demand letter dated January 5, 1997 and her reply to thedemand 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 aresubject to proof:

4.1.1. Plaintiffs personality to seek legal relief;4.1.2. Plaintiffs entitlement to the amount claimed;

13


20/77

4.2. Defendant submits that the following issues she put forward are subject toproof:

4.2.1. Plaintiffs bad faith in filing this suit;4.2.2. Defendants entitlement to the claims made in her Compulsory

Counterclaim as a result of plaintiffs 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 circumstancesleading to the filing of this suit against her;

5.1.2. An employee of Topless Enterprises with personal knowledge asto the true circumstances behind the alleged obligations due and owing infavor of plaintiff.

[5] 5.2. Defendant reserves the right to present any and all documentary evidencewhich shall become relevant to rebut plaintiffs claims in the course of trial as well as anyother witnesses whose testimony will become relevant to belie plaintiffs witnesses, if necessary.

VI. RESORT TO DISCOVERY

[7] 6.1. Considering the relatively simple issues presented, defendant does notintend to avail of discovery at this time.

6.2. Subject, however, to a concrete and reasonable request for discovery fromplaintiff, defendant reserves the right to resort to discovery before trial.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City; 13 April 2007.


[Address]

Copy furnished:

Atty. MA BOLACounsel for Plaintiff

14


21/77

D. Motions1. Motion to dismiss (with request for and notice of hearing)

Republic of the PhilippinesNational Capital Judicial RegionMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

Branch 39, Quezon City

LAKI ASSET COMPANY,Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 3333- versus - For: Sum of Money

DAMI UTANG CORPORATION,Defendant.

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

MOTION TO DISMISS

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully moves to dismiss the Complaint on the groundthat the Complaint fails to state a cause of action as [1] THE OBLIGATION SOUGHT TO BEENFORCED BY PLAINTIFF IS NOT YET DUE AND DEMANDABLE, as shown by the following:

[2] 1. Allegedly, plaintiff has failed to reach the quotas agreed upon under theMarketing Agreement dated 1 January 2006; defendant now seeks to collect the sum of TWOHUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00), representing the balance of the proceeds dueplaintiff under the said Marketing Agreement.

2. The contract is for one (1) year and defendant is given that same period to reachthe quota specified therein; the period of one (1) year has not expired. Consequently,plaintiffs claim is premature as there is yet no breach of the Marketing Agreement until theperiod expires and the quota is not attained. For this reason, plaintiffs Complaint states no

cause of action and must be dismissed.[3] WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the Complaint be DISMISSED for

failure to state a cause of action.




[Address]

[4] REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURTMetropolitan Trial CourtBranch 39, Quezon City

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approvalimmediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same in the courts calendar forhearing on Friday, 27 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

ATTICUS FINCH1 MockingBird Street

Timog Avenue, Quezon City

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on Friday, 27 April 2007 at8:30 in the morning.



PLUS: [5] Proof of Service

15


22/77

2. Motion for leave of court to file pleading (with explanation for serviceby registered mail)

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

LAKI UTANG,Petitioner,G.R. No. ________

- versus -

DAMI LUPA,Respondent.

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

MOTION FOR LEAVEOF COURT TO FILE REPLY WITH

MOTION TO ADMIT ATTACHED REPLY

PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states that:[1] 1. Petitioner received a copy of respondents Comment to his petition on 3

January 2006. The Comment contains several allegations of fact and misinterpretations of the record that may mislead the court and need to be corrected. For this reason, petitionerintends to file a Reply.

[2] 2. Under existing rules, a Reply can no longer be filed as a matter of course.Consequently, petitioner seeks leave of this Court to file the said Reply, a copy of which,pursuant to the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, is attached to this motion.

[3] WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that he be granted leave of court tofile a Reply and for the Court to admit the attached Reply.

Quezon City for Manila; 5 January 2007.

(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHCounsel for the Petitioner

[Address]

PLUS:1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing2. [5] Explanation for service by registered mail

16


23/77

3. Motion for judgment on the pleadings



LAKISA LAYAW,Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 97-31312- versus - For: Sum of Money


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

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Plaintiiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:

1. On 6 July 2005, plaintiff sued defendant for a sum of money in the amount of NineHundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00).

[1 & 2] 2. In his Answer, defendant admitted the obligation and merely stated thathe was asking to be given an extension of time to pay his obligation but that plaintiff insteadfiled this Complaint. The Answer admits the material allegations of the Complaint and hasnot tendered any issue; consequently, a judgment on the pleadings may be rendered.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays a judgment on the pleadings berendered in his favor.


(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHCounsel for the Plaintiff

[Address]

PLUS:1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing2. [5] Proof of Service

17


24/77

4. Ex parte motion to set for pre-trial



LAKISA LAYAW,Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 97-31312- versus -


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

EX PARTE MOTION TO SET CASE FOR PRE-TRIAL


[1] 1. On 1 June 2006, defendant submitted her Answer to the Complaint, therebycausing the issues to be joined.

[2] 2. This case is, thus, ripe for pre-trial. Complying with Rule 18, Section 1 of the1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, plaintiff respectfully asks that this case be set for pre-trial.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this case be set for pre-trial on adate convenient to this Honorable Court.


(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCH

Counsel for the Plaintiff [Address]

[4] REQUEST AND NOTICE

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURTRegional Trial CourtBranch 39, Quezon City

Please submit the foregoing to the Court for its approval immediately upon receipthereof.

Copy furnished:

MITCH MCDEERE, ESQ.2 The FirmLaguna Street, Quezon City

Please take notice that counsel has requested for the approval of the foregoingmotion immediately upon receipt.

(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHCounsel for the Plaintiff

PLUS: [5] Proof of Service

18


25/77

5. Motion for postponement



DILA TORY,Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 008877- versus -

PASEN SYOSO,Defendant.

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

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT


1. This case is set for trial on 5 May 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

[1] 2. On said date and time, the undersigned counsel will be unable to appearbefore this Honorable Court as he has also been directed to appear on this date and timebefore the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139 for People of the Philippines v. BilMoko, Criminal Case No. 009988, where he is scheduled to terminate cross-examination of the prosecutions expert witness who will be available only on said date and time.

[2] 3. Without impugning the importance of these proceedings, plaintiff respectfullysubmits that his attendance in the Makati case becomes indispensable; otherwise, theaccused in said case would be deprived of the opportunity to confront and cross-examine avital witness against her.

4. This motion is prompted only by the foregoing reason and not for delay.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that the trial scheduled on 5 May 2007be POSTPONED to another date convenient to this Honorable Court.


(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for the Plaintiff

[Address]

PLUS:

1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing2. [5] Proof of Service

19


26/77

6. Motion for extension of time



DILA TORY,Plaintiff,


PASEN SYOSO,Defendant.

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

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME


1. He has been directed to file a Reply to defendants Answer by 10 May 2007.

[1 & 2] 2. The undersigned counsel, however, anticipates his inability to file theReply on or before the said due date because of the tremendous pressure of other equallyurgent professional work requiring the preparation of pleadings and almost daily trialappearances before the various courts within and outside Metro Manila. For this reason, theundersigned is constrained to ask for an additional fifteen (15) days from 10 May 2007, oruntil 25 May 2007, within which to submit plaintiffs Reply.

3. This motion is not intended for delay but is motivated only by the foregoingreason.

[3]WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that he be granted an additional fifteen(15) days from 10 May 2007, or until 25 May 2007, within which to submit plaintiffs Reply.


(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for Plaintiff

[Address]


20


27/77

7. Motion to declare defendant in default



ANAKIN SKYWALKER,Plaintiff,


PADME AMIDALA,Defendant.

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

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT


1. Plaintiff filed this Complaint against defendant on 1 March 2007; summons wereserved on defendant on 20 March 2007, as indicated by the Sheriffs Return of even date, acopy of which is attached as ANNEX A.

[1 & 2] 2. Defendants reglementary period to file Answer ended on 5 April 2007; nomotion for extension of such period was filed nor was any granted motu proprio by thisHonorable Court. Despite the lapse of time, defendant has failed to answer the Complaintagainst her; plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of default and the right to present evidenceex parte against defendant.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that defendant be declared in defaultand that plaintiff be allowed to present evidence ex parte before the Clerk of Court acting as

Commissioner.Quezon City; 7 April 2007.

(Sgd.) DARTH SIDIOUSCounsel for Plaintiff

[Address]


21


28/77

8. Motion to lift order of default



ANAKIN SKYWALKER,Plaintiff,


PADME AMIDALA,Defendant.

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

MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that:

1. Five (5) days after service of summons and receipt of Complaint, she filed aMotion to Dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs claim is outside the jurisdictional amount of this Honorable Court under the new Expanded Jurisdiction Act and that the Complaint shouldproperly be filed and tried before the Metropolitan Trial Court. The Motion to Dismiss, whichwas received by plaintiffs counsel on 25 March 2007, was set for hearing on 10 April 2007,as indicated on the Request for and Notice of Hearing.

2. Without waiting for the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, this Honorable Courtdeclared defendant in default on 7 April 2007 based solely on plaintiffs Motion, filed two (2)days after the supposed lapse of the reglementary period, which, however, was tolled by thefiling of a Motion to Dismiss.

[1 & 2]3. Under the circumstances, the order of default is premature and withoutlegal and factual basis as: (a) defendant has not failed to file an Answer within the

reglementary period, (b) the reglementary period has not lapsed because of the filing of theMotion to Dismiss within the period, and (c) the pendency of the Motion to Dismiss isprejudicial to the issue of defendants default. Consequently, the order of default should belifted.

[3] WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the Order of Default against herbe LIFTED and that this Honorable Court resolve her Motion to Dismiss.


(Sgd.) OBI WAN KENOBICounsel for Defendant

[Address]


22


29/77

E. Special Civil Actions1. Certiorari (with Injunction and/or TRO), Prohibition and Mandamus

a. Certiorari

(Caption and Title)

PETITION

PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states that:

[2] 1. ( State capacity of petitioner and respondent/s, citizenship, status and residence .)

2. ( State the date on which copy of Decision was received and/or Resolution onMotion for Reconsideration, if filed, denied. )

[3] 3. ( State briefly the facts and circumstances under which the respondent/sexercising judicial functions acted without, or in excess of, jurisdiction or with grave abuseof discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. )

4. ( State entitlement to Injunction and/or TRO, i.e., [a] petitioner has a clear, legalright, [b] which is threatened by an act or omission of respondents, [c] and that, unlessrestrained, will cause grave and irreparable injury to petitioner. Allege also that petitioner isready to post a bond in an amount to be fixed by the Court conditioned upon the payment to respondents of any damages suffered arising from the writ should petitioner be found not to be entitled to the writ. )

5. There is no appeal from such decision or any plain or adequate speedy remedy inthe ordinary course of law, except this petition.

6. A certified true copy (or duplicate original copy) of the Decision under review isattached as ANNEX A.

[4] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that a writ of certiorari be issuedANNULLING the (act, decision or finding) for being in grave abuse of discretion; in theinterim, that a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order issue to ENJOIN anyfurther proceedings by respondents.

Quezon City; [1] 7 July 2007.


[Address]

PLUS: [5] Combined Verification, Certification against Forum Shopping, and Statement of Material Dates

* Rule 65, section 6, par. 2 expressly makes Rule 56, section 2 applicable to petitions forcertiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Rule 56, section 2 provides that Rules 46, 48, 49, 51,52 and 56 apply. Rule 46, section 3 provides that the petition must be accompanied notonly by a certified true copy of the judgment or order questioned but also bysuch material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and otherdocuments, relevant or pertinent thereto .

23


30/77

b. Prohibition

(Caption and Title)

PETITION

PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states that:[2] 1. ( State capacity of petitioner and respondent/s, citizenship, status and

residence .)

2. (If applicable, state the date on which copy of Decision was received and/or Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration, if filed, denied. )

[3] 3. ( State briefly the facts and circumstances under which the respondent/swhether exercising judicial or ministerial functions acted without, or in excess of, jurisdictionor with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. )

4. ( State entitlement to Injunction and/or TRO, i.e., [a] petitioner has a clear, legal

right, [b] which is threatened by an act or omission of respondents, [c] and that, unlessrestrained, will cause grave and irreparable injury to petitioner. Allege also that petitioner isready to post a bond in an amount to be fixed by the Court conditioned upon the payment to respondents of any damages suffered arising from the writ should petitioner be found not to be entitled to the writ. )

5. There is no appeal from such decision or any plain or adequate speedy remedy inthe ordinary course of law, except this petition.

6. A certified true copy (or duplicate original copy) of the Decision under review isattached as ANNEX A.

[4] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an injunction or TRO be issued

directing respondent/s to desist and refrain from further proceedings in the premises, andthat after due notice and hearing, a writ of prohibition issue directing respondent/s to desistabsolute and perpetually from further proceedings (in the said action or matter).



[Address]


24


31/77

c. Mandamus

(Caption and title)

PETITION

PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states that:[2] 1. (State the capacity of petitioner and respondent/s and their addresses. )

[3] 2. ( State the facts and circumstances whereby respondent/s unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resultingfrom an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excluded the petitioner from the enjoyment of aright or office to which the petitioner is entitled .)

3. Petitioner has no appeal from such decision or any plain or adequate speedyremedy in the ordinary course of law, except this petition.

[4] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due notice and hearing, a writ of

mandamus issue commanding respondent/s forthwith to: ( state the act required to be done ),with costs against them.



[Address]


25


32/77

2. Quo warranto, Interpleader, Quieting of Title, and Declaratory Relief a. Complaint in Interpleader

NALI LITO,Plaintiff,

SCA No. ____________

- versus -

UMA AGAW and INA AGAWAN,Defendants.

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

COMPLAINT


[1] 1. Plaintiff and defendants are all of legal age; plaintiff resides at ________________ while defendants reside at _______________ and _______________, respectively, where they maybe served with pertinent notices.

[2] 2. On 1 June 2007, plaintiff found a Gold Rolex Oyster watch, without knowingwho its true owner is. The watch is now in plaintiffs possession. On or about 5 June 1999,defendants made similar representations to plaintiff as to ownership of the watch.

3. Plaintiff, who claims no interest in the watch, cannot determine the conflictingclaims of defendants and thus seeks to compel defendants to interplead and litigate theirseveral claims between themselves.

[3] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court issue an orderdirecting defendants to interplead with one another to determine their respective rights andclaims and to allow plaintiff to recover his expenses for safekeeping and the costs of thissuit, as first lien upon the subject matter of this action .

[4] Quezon City; 7 July 2007.


[Address]


26


33/77

b. Action to Quiet (or Remove Cloud on) Title

IN RE: QUIETING OF TITLE OVER THEPROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO. 12345

SCA No. 1357NALI LITO, as Special Administrator of the

Estate of the deceased DAMI LUPA,Petitioner,

UMA AGAW,Respondent.

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

PETITION

PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states that:

[1] 1. He is the special administrator of the estate of the deceased DAMI LUPA.

[2] 2. The deceased, during his lifetime, executed a Deed of Sale of real estate infavor of the respondent dated _____________, and particularly described, as follows:

(Describe property)

covered by TCT No. 12345 in the Register of Deeds of Makati. The same is annotated on thetitle as the only encumbrance thereon.

3. The sale is fictitious and the Deed of Sale is forged, as shown by a judgment inCivil Case No. 2468, a copy of which is attached.

4. The existence of the alleged Deed of Sale is prejudicial and injurious to the title of the lawful heirs of the deceased upon the said property. Equity demands that the said Deed

of Sale be surrendered and cancelled, as it is a cloud upon the title of the deceased and hislawful heirs.

[3] WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that this Honorable Court render judgment in the Estates favor by ordering the Deed of Sale surrendered and cancelled andthe cloud on Title No. 12345 removed.


[5] (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for Petitioner

[Address]


27


34/77

c. Action for Declaratory Relief

INA API,Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 2468

THE CITY COUNCILOF QUEZON CITY,

Defendant.x --------------------------- x

COMPLAINT


[1] 1. Plaintiff is a Filipino citizen of legal age and resident of Quezon City;defendant is the City Council of Quezon City, the duly-constituted legislative body forQuezon City, its members may be served with notices at Quezon City Hall.

[2] 2. On 1 August 1999, defendant City Council passed Ordinance No. 2345 makingit unlawful to operate cellular phone units while inside a moving vehicle and penalizing anyviolations with a fine of P1,000.00 for each offense in addition to impounding of the cellularphone unit. The relevant portions of the Ordinance are, as follows:

(Quote the relevant portions)

3. The above-quoted portion is ambiguous because it leaves unfettered discretion tothe authorities to stop even urgent and important calls which may be made only while theperson is in transit. It fails to consider that, due to the worsening traffic conditions in MetroManila, majority of business is conducted in transit and over cellular phones. Plaintiff is alawyer who frequently has to dictate important pleadings over the phone while in transit due

to the worsening traffic condition. The Ordinance appears to bar his doing so but plaintiff isunaware of the limits of permissible action under the Ordinance.

4. Unless declaratory relief is granted, plaintiff will suffer grave and irreparable injurybecause he is unsure of the instances when he may lawfully use his cellular phone while in amoving vehicle and when such use may lead to confiscation and a fine.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court grantdeclaratory relief and declare plaintiffs rights and duties under the Ordinance.



[Address]


28


35/77

d. Quo Warranto

(Caption and title)

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states that:[1] 1. ( State the capacity and address of both plaintiff and defendant. )

[2] 2. ( State fully and clearly the facts and circumstances showing that defendant isunlawfully occupying a public office and that plaintiff is entitled to hold the same office. )

3. ( State that plaintiff has demanded that defendant vacate said office and deliver it to plaintiff but that defendant has unlawfully refused to do so.)

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that a writ of quo warranto issue oustingand excluding defendant from occupying the office of ____________ and declare that plaintiff is entitled to the said office and that he be placed forthwith in possession thereof.


[5] (Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHCounsel for the Plaintiff

[Address]


29


36/77

III. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL FORMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDUREA. Complaint-Affidavit and Counter-Affidavit

1. Complaint-Affidavit

Republic of the Philippines )City of Makati ) s.s.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

[1] I, MA SELAN , of legal age, Filipino, with assistance of counsel, and [2] residentof 4 Privet Drive, Triple X Village, Makati, do hereby state under oath that:

1. I am a member of the Triple X Village Homeowners Association (Association)and was formerly a Director and Corporate Secretary of the Association.

[3] 2. I accuse and hereby charge MR. MA INGAY , residing at 5 Privet Drive, TripleX Village, Makati, of violating Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (Slander and OralDefamation), committed against me when he publicly, maliciously and deliberately uttereddefamatory remarks against me during the Board Meeting of the Association on 27 January

2007. This is attested to by the following exchange that transpired between Mr. Ingay andthe other members of the Board in attendance:

(Quote Exchange)

Attached as ANNEX A is a copy of the official transcript of the meeting.

3. Prior resort to the Barangay conciliation system proved fruitless as Mr. Ingay didnot retract his remarks. Consequently, a Certification to File Action was issued by theBarangay Chairperson, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX B .

4. There is no other person named Ma Selan residing at Triple X Village nor is thereany other person named Ma Selan who has acted as Board Member of the Association.

Consequently, Mr. Ingays public and defamatory utterance was clearly a reference to meand to no other.

5. Mr. Ma Ingays remarks, calling me a swindler twice over, uttered in a publicmeeting are clearly insulting and defamatory as they malign me and attribute to me acriminal act, nature and predisposition. There is, moreover, no doubt that Mr. Ingays use of the word swindled was deliberate as his explanation and clarification a few utterancesthereafter would show. Mr. Ingays remarks are also very serious as they cast aspersions onmy reputation, character and very person before my peers and fellow homeowners.

6. Mr. Ingays remarks have injured my name, reputation and character before myneighbors and peers. While my name, reputation and character are incapable of pecuniaryestimation as these are the result of a lifetimes effort to build a name, reputation andcharacter that my children and their children can be proud to bear, Mr. Ingay cannot beallowed to simply go scot-free without bearing the consequences of his acts. For this reason,I am also holding Mr. Ma Ingay liable civilly for defaming me in the amount of OneMillion Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in nominal damages, Five Hundred Thousand Pesos(P500,000.00) in moral damages and Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00)in exemplary damages .

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Complaint-Affidavit on 13 April2007.

[4] (Sgd.) MA SELANComplainant-Affiant

[5] SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 13 th day of April 2007.

(Sgd.) Investigating Prosecutor

[6] CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE AFFIANT AND AMSATISFIED THAT HE VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED AND UNDERSTOOD HIS AFFIDAVIT.

(Sgd.) Investigating Prosecutor

30


37/77

2. Counter-Affidavit

Republic of the Philippines )City of Makati ) s.s.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

Re: I.S. No. 1613[1] I, MA LABO, of legal age, with assistance of counsel, do hereby state under oath

that:

1. I am the Chief of Staff of the Mayor of Quezon City, and have been occupying saidpost since his election to the post in 1998. In said capacity, I am in charge of coordinatingthe day-to-day affairs and activities of his Office.

[2] 2. I recently learned that I have been made a respondent in I.S. No. 1613, acharge for estafa , filed by a certain MA GULANG on 19 January 2007 before the Office of the City Prosecutor for Quezon City.

3. The charge is based on a supposedly unpaid account for the purchase of seven (7)Nextel phone units by a Mr. MANGGA GANTSO of the Quezon City Rescue and EnvironmentalDistress Unit, which made the Mayor their Honorary Chairman with no direct functions; hehas been supporting their activities financially with voluntary contributions.

[3] 4. There is no truth to the allegations in MA GULANGs complaint. There is nofactual nor legal basis to charge me with estafa . The Complaint must be dismissed. To rebutand contradict MA GULANGs malicious lies, I set forth the true circumstances leading to thetransaction below:

4.1. Sometime last year, Ms. Gulang called the office of the Mayor,looking for him; I informed her that he was not around. I took a message fromher saying that she was a friend of the Mayor and that she was selling Nextel

units and if we wanted to buy units from her. I informed her that both theMayor and I had our units already; she then told me if the Mayor could referher to prospective clients. When the Mayor arrived, I relayed the message tohim.

4.2. Quite coincidentally, Mr. Gantso had called the Mayor asking if hecould assist in securing Nextel units. The Mayor asked me to call Ms. Gulang.Mr. Gantso and Ms. Gulang were able to meet, as a result.

4.3. On that day, Ms. Gulang brought the units to the Mayors Office;she met with Mr. Gantso inside the Mayors office. They transacted businessinside the Mayors Office and only passed by my office on their way out.

4.4. Some time after that, Ms. Gulang phoned me and told me that Mr.Gantso had not paid her the amount of P11,000.00 for the units. Somewhatembarrassed by this, I called Mr. Gantso and told him to pay Ms. Gulang; heassured me that he would pay her but that he just needed to collect moneyfrom the rest of the group.

4.5. After persistent calls from Ms. Gulang telling me that Mr. Gantsohad not yet paid, I gave her the telephone number of Gantso so that she could

just call him directly. But even then, I would still get calls from Ms. Gulang;and when she started to get angry over the telephone, I set up anappointment for Mr. Gantso to meet with her at the Office.

4.6. Thereafter, I would still receive phone calls telling me that Mr.Gantso had yet to pay; I would follow up with Mr. Gantso but he simply gaveme this promise that he would pay.

5. It is utterly inexplicable that Ms. Gulang would hold me liable for estafa when allthat I did was to refer Ms. Gulang to Mr. Gantso; to a certain extent, I even exerted my bestefforts to see that Ms. Gulang was paid due simply to my great embarrassment at theprospect of being accused of referring a person who does not know how to pay for anobligation.

6. For this reason, it is certainly incomprehensible that I should stand accused of estafa by Ms. Gulang. I performed no act of deceit or fraud against her in orderingthe units. I performed NO ACT that even remotely resembles ANY of the actspunished under Article 315 . If at all, any cause of action is PURELY CIVIL in nature andthat liability does not pertain to my personal account in the absence of a showing that I

31


38/77

benefited from the Nextel units (which Ms. Gulang does not even allege and cannot prove);any civil liability should pertain to the Office of the Mayor, not to me.

7. Considering the foregoing, I respectfully submit that there is no prima facie basisto conclude that the crime of Estafa or that any crime at all has been committed. TheComplaint against me should, thus, be dismissed.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Statement on 3 February2007.

[4] (Sgd.) MA LABOAffiant

PLUS:1. [5] Verification2. [6] Certification

32


39/77

B. Information and Complaint1. Information (with Certificate of Preliminary Investigation or Inquest)

a. Bigamy

(Caption)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 00567- versus - For: Bigamy

PI KUTIN,Accused.

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

INFORMATION

The Undersigned accuses PI KUTIN of the crime of Bigamy, committed as follows:

That on or about 3 July 2006, in the City of Quezon and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being then legallymarried to BIL MOKO, and without such marriage having been legallydissolved and thus valid and existing, did wilfully, unlawfully and felicitouslycontract a second marriage with ASA WA in the City of Quezon.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

ELLIOT NESSAssistant City Prosecutor

CERTIFICATE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONI hereby certify that a preliminary investigation in this case was conducted by me in

accordance with law; that I examined the Complainant and her witnesses; that there isreasonable ground to believe that the offense charged had been committed and that theaccused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the Complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and was given the opportunity to submit controvertingevidence; and that the filing of this Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor.


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 9 th day of August 2006 in Quezon City.

AL CAPONECity Prosecutor

Bail Recommended: P10,000.00

33


40/77

b. Theft

(Caption)


Criminal Case No. 00567- versus - For: Theft

KLEPTO MANIAC,Accused.

x --------------------------------------------- xINFORMATION

The Undersigned accuses KLEPTO MANIAC of the crime of Theft, committed asfollows:

That on or about 3 July 2006, in the City of Quezon andwithin the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,

then 11 years old and without any known address, willfully,unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, without forceupon things or violence upon persons and without theknowledge and consent of MA ALAHAS, the owner, took a goldnecklace studded with diamonds valued at One Hundred

Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) to the prejudice of said owner.

CONTRARY TO LAW.


CERTIFICATION AS TO CONDUCT OF INQUEST

I hereby certify that the accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant and that,upon being informed of his rights, refused to waive the provisions of Article 125 of theRevised Penal Code and, for this reason, an Inquest was conducted; that based on thecomplaint and the evidence presented before me without any countervailing evidencesubmitted by the accused, despite opportunity to do so, there is reasonable ground tobelieve that the accused has committed the crime of theft and should, thus, be held for saidcrime; that this Information was with the prior authority of the City Prosecutor.


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 9 th of August 2006 in Quezon City.

AL CAPONECity Prosecutor

34


41/77

c. Attempted Rape

(Caption)


Criminal Case No. 00567- versus - For: Attempted Rape

MAEL SIA,Accused.

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

INFORMATION

The undersigned accuses MAEL SIA of attempted rape committed as follows:

That on or about 6 June 2005, in Quezon City, the accused did then andthere wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of SEK SEE, a

married woman, and finding that her husband was away, with lewd designsand by means of force and intimidation, commenced directly by overt acts tocommit the crime of attempted rape upon her person, to wit: while SEK SEEwas cooking lunch, the accused seized her from behind, threw her to the floor,raised her skirt, pulled down her underwear and attempted to penetrate herwith his sexual organ and would have succeeded in doing so had not her loudprotests and vigorous resistance brought her neighbors to her assistance,causing the accused to flee from the premises without completing all the actsof execution.

CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

ELLIOT NESS

Assistant City ProsecutorPLUS: Certification of Preliminary Investigation or Inquest

35


42/77

d. Frustrated Murder

(Caption)


Criminal Case No. 00567- versus - For: Frustrated Murder

MAMA MATAY,Accused.

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

INFORMATION

The undersigned accuses MAMA MATAY of frustrated murder committed as follows:

That on or about 21 August 2006, in Quezon City, the accused did thenand there take a loaded .44 Caliber Magnum pistol, directly aim the same

firearm at the person of VIC TIMA, an invalid septuagenarian, and, at pointblank range, with intent to kill, discharge the firearm twice against the personof said Vic Tima, inflicting on said Vic Tima two (2) wounds on his chest andstomach, which wounds would have been fatal had not timely medicalassistance been rendered to the said Vic Tima.

CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstances of EvidentPremeditation, use of firearm and disregard of age.

(Sgd.) ELLIOT NESSAssistant City Prosecutor

PLUS: Certification of Preliminary Investigation or Inquest

36


43/77

C. Motions1. Motion to Quash Information


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 90, Quezon CityPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 00567- versus - For: Theft

KLEPTO MANIAC,Accused.

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

MOTION TO QUASH

[2] THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves to quash the Information for the

crime of theft on the following:[3] GROUNDS

1. IT CONTAINS AVERMENTS WHICH, IF TRUE, WOULD CONSTITUTE A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION;

2. THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

In support, the accused respectfully states that:

ARGUMENT

The Information alleges that the accused KLEPTO MANIAC is eleven (11) years oldand without any known address. Under Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, aperson over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he acted with discernment, isexempt from criminal liability.

There is no allegation that the accused acted with discernment. Even granting saiddiscernment, the accused cannot be tried but instead proceeded against under Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a minor, unless sixteen years of age at the timeof the commission of a grave or less grave felony, cannot be tried but instead shall have thebenefit of a suspension of all proceedings against him. The duty of the court would be tocommit the minor to the custody or care of a public or private benevolent or charitableinstitution for the care and education of homeless and delinquent children or to the custodyof the Department of Social Work and Development.

[4] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Information against the accused beQUASHED and that the accused be released immediately from detention.


[6] (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for the Accused

[Address]


37


44/77

2. Motion to Quash Search Warrant

[1] (Caption)PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - Criminal Case No. 00022For: LibelVIG CHAN,

Accused.x ---------------------------------------------- x

MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT

The ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal of Search Warrant No.1122 issued by this Honorable Court on and dated 12 July 2006 based on the followingconsiderations:

[2] 1. Rule 126, Sec. 10 or the Revised Rules of Court provides expressly that a

search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date and that thereafter, it shall bevoid.

2. Search Warrant No. 1122 is dated 12 July 2006. It was served on the accused on23 July 2006, the 11 th day from its date; this is certified to by the Sworn Inventory andReturn executed by Major Alang Alam, the leader of the searching team (a copy of which isalready part of the records). A search was made on the same day, 23 July 2006; pursuant tosaid search, certain objects were seized and delivered to the court. Under the law, theSearch Warrant is void and must, thus, be quashed.

[3] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Search Warrant No. 1122 be QUASHEDand all objects seized under its purported authority be declared INADMISSIBLE under theexclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) in relation to section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.


[5] (Sgd.) MA TAPANGCounsel for Accused

[Address]


38


45/77

3. Motion to Suppress Evidence

[1] (Caption)


- versus - Criminal Case No. 00022For: Libel

VIG CHAN,Accused.

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

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY SEIZED

The ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves for the suppression of objects seizedon 23 July 2006, pursuant to Search Warrant No. 1122 issued by this Honorable Court dated12 July 2006, based on the following considerations:

[2] 1. Search Warrant No. 1122 was served on the 11th

day and is, thus, void.2. The motor vehicle seized does not fall within the property that may lawfullybe seized.

Discussion[1] Search Warrant No. 1122 wasserved on the 11 th day and is, thus,void.

1. Rule 126, Sec. 10 of the Revised Rules of Court provides expressly that a searchwarrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date and that thereafter, it shall be void.

2. Search Warrant No. 1122 is dated 12 July 2006. It was served on the accused on

23 July 2006, the 11th

day from its date; this is certified to by the Sworn Inventory andReturn executed by Major Alang Alam, the leader of the searching team (a copy of which isalready part of the records). A search was made on the same day, 23 July 2006; pursuant tosaid search, certain objects were seized and delivered to the court. Under the law, theSearch Warrant is void.

3. No valid seizure may be made under a void warrant. For this reason, the followingobjects must be suppressed:

[list items]

[2] The motor vehicle seized doesnot fall within the property thatmay lawfully be seized.

4. On the occasion of the search, the searching party also seized accuseds green Jaguar XJE with license plate, No. 1", allegedly for being subject of the offense. Thereafter,it was impounded and kept at the PNP Motor Pool.

5. The motor vehicle cannot be subject of the offense as accused is charged withlibel. There is no relation between the motor vehicle and libel.

6. Moreover, the motor vehicle is not mala prohibita that would justify a seizurethereof; neither could there be a seizure of evidence in plain view.

[3] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that all objects seized under the voidSearch Warrant No. 1122 be declared INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III,section 3(2) in relation to Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Furthermore, it is prayed thatthe Green Jaguar XJE with license plate No. 1" be immediately returned to the accused.


[5] (Sgd.) MA TAPANGCounsel for Accused

[Address]


39


46/77

4. Motion for Bail

[1] (Caption)


Criminal Case No. 00567- versus - For: Murder

NAKA PIIT,Accused.

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

MOTION FOR BAIL

[2] THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves to be allowed bail on the groundthat the [3] prosecutions evidence of his guilt is not strong. In support, he respectfullysubmits the following:

1. The Information alleges that he raped the private complainant on 25 December2005 at his residence in Quezon City. The prosecutions own evidence, however, belies thisallegation as: (a) the medical certificate (attached as ANNEX A to the Information) statesthat private complainant is in a virgin state with no physical and outward signs of trauma;(b) the medical certificate issued by the NBI doctor (attached as ANNEX B to theInformation) after a physical examination of the accused, two (2) days after the allegedrape, shows that he is suffering from erectile dysfunction and has been so afflicted for closeto five (5) years now and (c) the sworn statements of the private complainant conflict withand contradict each other such that her credibility must be placed in doubt.

2. For these reasons, there is no basis to conclude that the accused raped theprivate complainant as there is less than circumstantial evidence of this fact. He is, thus,entitled to bail as a matter of right.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the accused be granted: (1) a bail hearing,during which the prosecution should be directed to present its evidence to show thestrength of its evidence of the accuseds guilt, and (2) thereafter, grant the accusedreasonable bail.


Quezon City; 7 July 2007.

(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for the Accused

[Address]

PLUS: Request for and Notice of Hearing

40


47/77

D. Application for Bail

[1] (Caption)


- versus - Criminal Case No. 114878

RECY DIVIST,Accused.

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

APPLICATION FOR PROBATION

THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully applies for probation pursuant to theprovisions of Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.

In support of this application, the accused respectfully submits the following:

1. Accused-applicant is of legal age and currently gainfully employed at ASNBroadcasting Corporation located at Timog Avenue, Quezon City. On 23 February 2007, shepleaded guilty to the offense charged herein; consequently, this Honorable Court in itsOrder dated 8 March 2007 sentenced accused-applicant to an indeterminate penalty rangingfrom three (3) years to five (5) years of prision correccional .

[2] 2. Accused-applicant humbly submits that she possesses all the qualificationsand none of the disqualifications enumerated under section 2 of Presidential Decree No.968, specifically:

2.1. She has not been convicted of any crime against national securityor public order;

2.2. She has not been previously convicted by final judgment of anoffense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one(1) day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00);

2.3. She has not previously applied for nor had been previously placedunder probation under Presidential Decree No. 968.

2.4. She has not started to serve her sentence and, to date, has notfiled any Notice of Appeal from the Order of conviction.

3 Finally, granting this application will not in any way depreciate the seriousness of the offense charged nor cause any undue risk that during the period of probation, accused-applicant will commit another crime. Moreover, accused-applicant does not need anycorrectional treatment requiring commitment to an institution.

[3] WHEREFORE, accused-applicant respectfully prays that her application forprobation be GRANTED and that she be placed under probation under such terms andconditions necessary to attain and ensure the objectives of the law and which, under thecircumstances, are fair, just and reasonable in the sound discretion of this Honorable Court.

Quezon City for Pasig City; 12 March 2007.

(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHCounsel for Accused

[Address]

PLUS:1. [4] Verification2. [5] Request for and Notice of Hearing

41


48/77

IV. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS COMMON TO CIVIL ANDCRIMINAL PROCEDUREA. Offer of Evidence and Opposition/Comment to Offer

1. Formal Offer of Evidence

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial RegionREGIONAL TRIAL COURTBranch 90, Quezon City


Criminal Case No. 000011- versus -

RECY DIVIST,Accused.

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

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

THE PROSECUTION, by the undersigned public and private prosecutors, respectfullyoffer their documentary exhibits in support of their case-in-chief:

1. Exhibit A, the sworn statement of Alang Kaso, the private complainant, andExhibit A-1, his signatureto prove that on the date and time stated in the affidavit, theaccused issued a post-dated check in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00)which, on presentment for payment, was dishonored for lack of insufficient funds; to proveauthorship and the authenticity of the sworn statement; and as part of the testimony of theprivate complainant.

2. Exhibit B, the post-dated check dated 30 June 2004, issued by the accused in theamount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00); Exhibit B-1, the dorsal side of the check withnotation DAIF; Exhibit B-2, the signature of accused on face of the checkto prove theissuance of the check, the amount stated, the reason for dishonor and the identity of theissuer. The marked copies of Exhibits A and B are already part of the record.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution respectfully prays that the foregoing Exhibits beADMITTED as proof of the facts therein stated and in support of its case-in-chief and for allother relevant purposes.

Quezon City; 7 July 2007.

ELLIOT NESS ATTICUS FINCHPublic Prosecutor Private Prosecutor

Copy furnished:

MITCH MCDEERECounsel for Accused

42


49/77

2. Comment/O

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	michael-arceta
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Legal Forms 2007, Prof. Teh

Documents