REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 157, PASIG CITY

HERMOGENES G.
CINCO, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

~ versus ~ CIVIL CASE NO. 69631

RAMON K. CRAME,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM

DEFENDANT, by undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court,

respectfully submits his memorandum:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an action for the recovery of damages originally filed by the

plaintiffs against defendants Beau Barracoso and herein defendant,

Ramon K. Crame arising from the deaths of Adelaida Cinco and her

daughter, Araceli Cinco. Due, however, to the amicable settlement

arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendant Beau Barracoso, the

case against the latter was dismissed, and only the case against herein

defendant Ramon K. Crame is being maintained and prosecuted by the

plaintiffs.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE

The defendant Ramon K. Crame was the owner of a Honda City

bearing plate no. UUY 452 at the time the complaint in this case was
 ~2~

filed. He generally uses a Honda Civic loaned to him by the company

where he was then a consultant, while the Honda City was more often

used by the members of his family – a wife and two daughters. His

youngest daughter, Ma. Patricia L. Crame was then going out steadily

with Beau Barracoso, a former defendant in this case. They dated

regularly.

The said Beau Barracoso then shuttles between the residences of

his mother at President Quirino Street, Life Homes Subdivision, Rosario,

Pasig City and the residence of his father in Mandaluyong. The Crames

had their residence at No. 23 San Manuel, Barrio Capitolyo, Pasig City.

The defendant Ramon K. Crame imposed very strict house rules on

the use of the cars. They were:

1. Only members of the Crame family are allowed to use the cars

2. Anyone who would like to use any of the cars must seek prior express

permission from Ramon K. Crame.

3. After using the car, the keys should be return to the house box

containing all the house keys; and

4. Inform Ramon K. Crame that the car has been returned. 1

In the morning of May 29, 2003, Ma. Patricia L. Crame sought

permission from her father, the defendant Ramon K. Crame, to use the

Honda City car in the afternoon of that day as she and her boyfriend,

Beau Barracoso, would go see a movie at SM Megamall. The defendant

Ramon K. Crame gave his permission to let her use the said car.2

1
Pages 5, 6, TSN of October 2, 2007
2
Page 5, TSN of October 3, 2006
 ~3~

At about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the said day, Ma. Patricia

L. Crame and Beau Barracoso left for SM Megamall to watch a movie,

with the former driving the Honda City car. They returned home at about

10:00 o’clock in the evening. Ma. Patricia L. Crame parked the car

outside the house along the street, because Ramon K. Crame’s car was

parked inside the garage. Upon entering the house, she placed the car

keys inside the box located in the living room, where all the house keys

were placed. Beau Barracoso was beside her when she returned the car

keys in the box. She then went upstairs to inform Ramon K. Crame that

the car is parked outside the house and the car keys are in the box. 3

Thereafter, Ma. Patricia L. Crame and Beau Barracoso had dinner

in the dining room. In the course of their dinner, they had a spat, and in

her anger, Ma. Patricia L. Crame told Beau Barracoso to leave the house

because she was going upstairs.4

Beau Barracoso asked her if he could use the Honda City as he

had to get some clothes and money from his mother’s house at President

Quirino Street, Life Homes Subdivision, Rosario, Pasig City, having

decided that he would be sleeping at his father’s house in Mandaluyong

City. Ma. Patricia L. Crame adamantly refused his request to use the car

because her father had absolute instructions not to let Beau Barracoso

use the car since he had no driver’s license. Ma. Patricia L. Crame then

went up after telling Beau Barracoso to find his way out. 5

However, when Ma. Patricia L. Crame had gone upstairs, Beau

Barracoso took the car keys from the box at the living room and drove

the Honda City car to Pasig City to get his clothes from his mother’s

3
Page 5, TSN of October 3, 2006
4
Page 6, TSN of October 3, 2006
5
Page 7, TSN of October 3, 2006
 ~4~

house.6 Beau Barracoso took the car without the consent of the

owner defendant Ramon K. Crame, and without the consent and

over the refusal and objection of defendant Ramon K. Crame’s

daughter, Ma. Patricia L. Crame.7

At about 5:30 o’clock in the morning of May 30, 2003, Beau

Barracoso while driving the Honda City he stole from defendant Ramon

K. Crame hit and bumped Adelaida E. Cinco and Araceli E. Cinco along

C. Raymundo Avenue, Caniogan, Pasig City, on his way back to return

the car to the Crame residence at San Manuel, Pasig City. 8 As a result of

the injuries sustained by Adelaida E. Cinco and Araceli E. Cinco, they

eventually died. At the time of the accident, neither the owner of the

car, defendant Ramon K. Crame nor his daughter, Ma. Patricia L.

Crame, were in the car with Beau Barracoso.

At about 6:30 o’clock in the morning of May 30, 2003, Ma. Patricia

L. Crame was awakened by a call from Beau Barracoso who informed her

that he had an accident using the Honda City. Ma. Patricia L. Crame was

surprised that Beau Barracoso took the car with him the night before

without her consent and over her refusal. After the call, Ma. Patricia L.

Crame immediately went to defendant Ramon K. Crame’s room to inform

him that their Honda City was involved in an accident. The defendant

Ramon K. Crame was very mad and directed Ma. Patricia L. Crame to fix

the mess since Beau Barracoso was then her boyfriend.

On September 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed the complaint in this

case against Beau Barracoso and defendant Ramon K. Crame. In

plaintiff’s complaint, the defendant Ramon K. Crame is being charged to

be jointly and severally liable with Beau Barracoso for damages “Because

6
Page 7, TSN of December 5, 2006
7
Page 20, TSN of December 5, 2006
8
Pages 12, 13, TSN of December 5, 2006
 ~5~

of the negligence and imprudence of defendant Crame consisting of his

failure to ascertain the license and fitness of defendant Baracoso to

drive, defendant Baracoso was able to use and operate the said car by

which he had bumped and killed Adelaida E. Cinco and Araceli E.

Cinco.”9

On April 5, 2003, defendant Ramon K. Crame was served copies of

the alias summons and the complaint. On April 20, 2004, defendant

Ramon K. Crame filed his Answer with Counterclaim. In his Answer,

defendant Ramon K. Crame raised the defense that the Beau Barracoso

drove and operated his car without his knowledge and consent. 10

On May 16, 2005, the plaintiffs and Beau Barracoso agreed to

settle their case amicably. Pursuant thereto, they filed a Motion for

Partial Judgment Upon Compromise Agreement. Since the defendant

Ramon K. Crame was not a party to the compromise agreement, the case

against him proceeded.

After the plaintiffs presented and subsequently rested their case in

May 2006, the defense proceeded to present its evidence with Ms. Ma.

Patricia L. Crame as its first witness. Essentially, she testified that her

father imposed very strict house rules on the use of the cars, to wit: (i)

only members of the Crame family are allowed to use the cars; (ii) anyone

who would like to use any of the cars must seek prior express permission

from Ramon K. Crame; (iii) after using the car, the keys are to be

returned to the house box containing all the house keys; and (iv) inform

Ramon K. Crame that the car has been returned; that when she and

Beau Barracoso returned home in the evening of May 29, 2003, she

9
Par. 8, Complaint
10
Par. 8, Answer with Counterclaim
 ~6~

parked the car outside the house along the street; that upon entering the

house, she placed the car keys inside the box located in the living room,

where all the house keys were usually placed; that Beau Barracoso was

beside her when she returned the car keys in the box; that she then went

upstairs to inform her father that the car was parked outside the house

and that the car keys were in the key box in the living room; that during

dinner, she had a spat with Beau Barracoso and in her anger, she told

Beau Barracoso to leave the house; that Beau Barracoso asked her if he

could use the Honda City as he had to get some clothes and money from

his mother’s house at President Quirino Street, Life Homes Subdivision,

Rosario, Pasig City; that she adamantly refused to let him use the car

because her father had absolute instructions not to let Beau Barracoso

use the car since he had no driver’s license; that she then went up after

telling Beau Barracoso to find his way out; that at about 6:30 o’clock the

next morning, she received a call from Beau Barracoso who informed her

that he had an accident using the Honda City; that she was surprised

that Beau Barracoso took the car without her consent and over her

refusal; that she immediately informed her father about the accident;

that her father was very mad and directed her to fix the mess since Beau

Barracoso was then her boyfriend. On cross-examination, she testified

that she did not hear Beau Barracoso drive away with the car because

her room at the second floor of the house was about 25 meters away

from where she parked the car.11

When presented as witness on October 2, 2007, the defendant

Ramon K. Crame corroborated the testimony of Ma. Patricia L. Crame on

all material points. He further testified that he did not hear Beau

Barracoso drive away with the Honda City car since the master’s

bedroom where he was sleeping that night was at the second floor of the
11
TSN of October 3, 2006
 ~7~

house and was about 25 to 30 meters away from the street where the car

was parked; and that the master’s bedroom was air-conditioned and he

was then watching the television.12

On December 5, 2006, Beau Barracoso was presented as witness

for the defense. He testified that during dinner in the night of May 29,

2003, he had a spat with Ma. Patricia L. Crame; that Ma. Patricia L.

Crame asked him to leave the house; that he asked her if he could use

the car to get some clothes from his mother’s house in Pasig City; that

Ma. Patricia L. Crame refused to let him use the car; that after Ma.

Patricia L. Crame went upstairs after refusing to let him borrow the

Honda City, he took the car keys from the its box in the living room; that

he drove the car to his mother’s car in Pasig City; that on his way back to

return the car, he met an accident. 13

After the defendant Ramon K. Crame rested his case on October

15, 2007, the case was deemed submitted for decision.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO THE

DAMAGES CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT AS AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT RAMON K. CRAME.

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO HIS

CLAIMS UNDER HIS COUNTERCLAIM.

DISCUSSION

12
TSN of October 2, 2007
13
TSN of December 5, 2006
 ~8~

THE PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE DAMAGES THEY ARE

CLAIMING IN THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT RAMON K.
CRAME

The defendants are not entitled to their claims under the complaint
because –

1. The plaintiff’s complaint against the defendant Ramon

K. Crame has no legal basis

2. Defendant Ramon K. Crame cannot be held liable for

an accident involving his car since it was driven
without his consent or knowledge and by a person not
employed by him.

THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AGAINST

THE DEFENDANT RAMON K. CRAME HAS
NO LEGAL BASIS

The pertinent portions of the complaint describing the alleged acts

of liability of the defendant Ramon K. Crame are as follows:

“7. Defendant Crame is the registered owner of the aforesaid Honda

City with Plate No. UUY 452 as may be shown by the car registration certificate
and the official receipt for registration fees, photocopies of which are hereto
attached and made integral part hereof as Annexes “A” and “B”.

8. Because of the negligence and imprudence of defendant Crame

consisting of his failure to ascertain the license and fitness of defendant Baracoso
to drive, defendant Baracoso was able to use and operate the said car by which he
had bumped and killed Adelaida E. Cinco and Araceli E. Cinco.

x x x x x x

11. In order to discourage other like-minded individuals as defendant

Baracoso who, having acted with gross, wanton and willful negligence,
recklessness, carelessness and imprudence in driving a car without a driver’s
license and without regard to traffic conditions, laws, rules and regulations, had
succeeded in converting the motor vehicle he was driving into an instrument of
death and in order to deter the commission of such similar acts in the future like
that of defendant Crame who had acted in gross and wanton negligence and
imprudence in lending his vehicle without first ascertaining the license and
fitness to drive of the borrower, both defendants should be made to pay plaintiffs,
jointly and severally, the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as
exemplary damages.” (Underlining supplied)14

After a careful reading of the above charges, we are at a loss under

what law the defendant is being charged.

14
Pages 2, 3, Complaint
 ~9~

Is the defendant being charged under Article 2176 of the Civil

Code? The said article provides:

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

The liability envisioned under aforecited article is the liability for

personal acts and omissions of the person being charged. In this case,

the defendant Ramon K. Crame is not being charged for his personal act,

but because he is the registered owner of the car involved in the

accident. The personal liability for damages in this case is attributable to

Beau Barracoso, who was directly involved in the accident; but the case

against him was amicably settled and dismissed. Apparently, defendant

Ramon K. Crame cannot be charged, under Article 2176 of the Civil

Code.

Is the defendant Ramon K. Crame being charged then under

Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not

only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one
is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated

persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise

responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches
in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though
the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
 ~ 10 ~

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special

agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be
applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be

liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage. (1903a)

The aforesaid article deals with the liability for the acts and

omissions of another person. It holds specific persons – parents,

guardians, owners and managers of establishments, employers, the State

and the teachers – liable for negligence of supervision of persons under

their responsibility.

This article, however, cannot apply to the defendant Ramon K.

Crame who is not anyone among those specified therein. He is not a

parent, guardian, owner/manager of an establishment, employer, the

State or a teacher. A painstaking review of the evidence on record failed

to disclose any evidence or circumstance of note enough to show that the

defendant Ramon K. Crame is anyone of these persons specified in said

article. More specifically, the plaintiffs never proved that defendant

Ramon K. Crame is the employer of Beau Barracoso. Under the rule of

statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, herein

defendant does not come within the ambit of Article 2180. Therefore,

there is no ground to charge the herein defendant under the cited

provision.

Does the herein defendant come within the scope of Article 2184,

which provides:
 ~ 11 ~

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with
his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180
are applicable. (n)

This provision presupposes that the registered owner of the vehicle

involved in the mishap was in the vehicle when the mishap occurred. In

this case, it has been proven that the defendant Ramon K. Crame was

not in the vehicle driven by Beau Barracoso when the accident

happened. He was at home.

The foregoing disquisition cannot but cast very serious doubt on

plaintiffs’ cause of action against the defendant Ramon K. Crame. It is

simply incontestable that plaintiffs’ claims against the herein defendant

cannot stand legal scrutiny since they have absolutely no basis in fact

and in law.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant Ramon K.

Crame loaned his vehicle to Beau Barracoso. 15 Such imputation is not

deserving of credence. The plaintiff never presented any evidence to show

that the defendant Ramon K. Crame lent his car to Beau Barracoso. It is

the duty of the plaintiffs to prove their positive assertion. This they did

not even attempt to do. Upon the other hand, the defense was able to

prove that Beau Barracoso drove the vehicle without the consent and

knowledge of defendant Ramon K. Crame and his daughter.

15
Paragraph 11, Complaint
 ~ 12 ~

DEFENDANT RAMON K. CRAME CANNOT

BE HELD LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT
INVOLVING HIS CAR SINCE IT WAS
DRIVEN WITHOUT HIS CONSENT OR
KNOWLEDGE AND BY A PERSON NOT
EMPLOYED BY HIM.

During the trial, the defendant herein was able to satisfactorily

prove that Beau Barracoso took the car from the residence of the

defendant Crame without his consent and knowledge. In fact, defendant

Crame’s daughter expressly refused his request to borrow the

defendant’s car. Thus, she testified:

Q: After you returned the keys to the box, what happened next?
A: Mr. Beau Barracoso decided to eat our dinner, we talked and he is used
in my house.

Q: And then what happened?

A: We had an argument, we had a spat, we had a fight and I got so angry at
him and I told him “Go home, leave, find your way out” and I went
upstairs and sleep.

Q: And what happened?

A: At that time, he asked me “Can I borrow your car, please.” Because my
house is in the middle of his two houses – Pasig and Mandaluyong. He
can immediately go to Pasig to get his things, clothes and money and
after that he had to go home to Mandaluyong where he was going to
sleep. So, he said “Can I please borrow your car, I will get my things,
take your car back and commute home” so he asked for my permission.

Q: So, he intended to borrow your car, go to where?

A: To his house in Rosario.

Q: Bring back the car and commute home?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where?
A: In Mandaluyong.

Q: When he asked your permission to use the car, what did you say?
A: I said “Absolutely not”, I cannot lend him the car.

Q: You refused?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you tell him why you refused?

A: Yes, sir, because my Dad will not allow it because he has no license.

Q: Again, your Dad will not?

A: My Dad will not allow it because he had no license.

Q: Who has no license?

A: Beau Barracoso has no license.
 ~ 13 ~

Q: Why does he not have a license to drive?

A: Because he has not re-applied for one in Canada.

Q: What happened after you refused to lend the car to Mr. Beau Barracoso?
A: I said I want to sleep, I went to my room upstairs and I went to sleep.

Q: And what happened after that?

A: I was asleep and at around 5:00 a.m. I woke up because my cellular
phone was ringing and when I looked at my cellular phone it was Beau
Barracoso calling me up.

Q: Why was he calling you up, what time was that?

A: At 5:00 a.m.

Q: Of May 30, 2003?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why did he call you up?

A: When I answered the phone and the first thing he said was “I am sorry, I
am sorry, I am sorry.” And then he said “I had and accident, I hit two
people and I think they are dead.” And then I said “What? I do not
understand, how could that happen?” He said “I took your Honda City
car.” And then I said “What? How did you take it?” And he said “I
took the key when you went upstairs and slept.” From then I thought I
had the urgency to go to him and I said “Where are you?” So he told me
where he was.” (Underlining supplied)16

During his testimony, Beau Barracoso categorically admitted

that he took the car owned by defendant Ramon K. Crame without

his consent and knowledge, and over the refusal and objection of

Ma. Patricia L. Crame. Thus, he testified:

Q: During the dinner, do you remember anything unusual that happened?

A: We had a spat, sir.

Q: What happened during your spat?

A: She told me to leave the house, sir.

Q: What did you say?

A: I was asking to borrow the car to get clothes from Pasig to Mandaluyong,
sir.

Q: You needed the car?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did Trixie give her permission for you to borrow the car?
A: No, sir.

Q: When she did not give her permission, what did she do?
A: She went upstairs, sir.

Q: When she went upstairs, did you leave right away?

A: I took the keys and left, sir.

Q: Where did you take the keys from?

16
Pages 6, 7, 8, TSN October 3, 2006
 ~ 14 ~

A: From the box, sir.

Q: Did you ask her permission that you would be taking the key?
A: No, sir.

Q: After you took the key from the key box, what did you do?
A: I went home to Pasig to get my clothes, sir.

Q: What did you use in going to Pasig?

A: The Honda City car, sir.

Q: Do you remember anything unusual that happened while driving?

A: On my way back I got an accident, sir. (Underlining ours) 17

On cross-examination, Beau Barracoso also testified:

Q: What prompted you to take the car?

A: It is because we had a spat and I thought she would not know that I
borrowed the car, sir.

Q: What made you believe that hindi niya malalaman?

A: When she went upstairs, sir.18

x x x x x x

Q: You are in effect saying also Mr. Witness, that it was only on May 29,
2003 that you borrowed the car of the father of your girlfriend?
A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: What prompted you to do that?

A: Because I got angry, your Honor.19

The separate testimonies of Beau Barracoso and Ma. Patricia L.

Crame, corroborated in all essential parts by the testimony of defendant

Ramon K. Crame, clearly established the fact that Beau Barracoso took

and drove away with the Honda City without the consent and knowledge

of its owner, the defendant Ramon K. Crame. The car was virtually stolen

from the residence of the herein defendant. Under the facts established,

the defendant Ramon K. Crame cannot be held liable for any mishap

caused by the negligence of Beau Barracoso. At the time of the accident,

Beau Barracoso was not an employee of the herein defendant, nor was

he authorized by the defendant to drive the car. Against this backdrop, to

17
Pages 6, 7, TSN December 5, 2006
18
Page 14, TSN December 5, 2006
19
Page 18, TSN December 5, 2006
 ~ 15 ~

hold the defendant Ramon K. Crame liable for Beau Barracoso’s

negligent acts would be the height of injustice and inequity.

As early as in 1939, the Supreme Court have ruled that an owner

of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said

vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a

person not employed by him. Thus, in Duquillo v. Bayot (67 Phil. 131-

133-134) [1939] the High Tribunal said:

“Under the facts established, the defendant cannot be held liable for
anything. At the time of the accident, James McGurk was driving the truck, and
he was not an employee of the defendant, nor did he have anything to do with the
latter's business; neither the defendant nor Father Ayson, who was in charge of
her business, consented to have any of her trucks driven on the day of the
accident, as it was a holy day, and much less by a chauffeur who was not in
charge of driving it; the use of the defendant's truck in the circumstances
indicated was done without her consent or knowledge; it may, therefore, be said,
that there was not the remotest contractual relation between the deceased Pio
Duquillo and the defendant. It necessarily follows from all this that articles 1101
and following of the Civil Code, cited by the appellant, have no application in
this case, and, therefore, the errors attributed to the inferior court are without
basis.” (Underlining ours)

Following the same trend of thought, the Supreme Court in

Gilberto M. Duavit vs. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 82318 May 18, 1989, a

case on all fours with the case at bar, remarked:

“As can be seen, the circumstances of the above cases are entirely
different from those in the present case. Herein petitioner does not deny
ownership of the vehicle involved in the mishap but completely denies
having employed the driver Sabiniano or even having authorized the latter
to drive his jeep. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioner's garage.
To hold, therefore, the petitioner liable for the accident caused by the
negligence of Sabiniano who was neither his driver nor employee would be
absurd as it would be like holding liable the owner of a stolen vehicle for an
accident caused by the person who stole such vehicle. In this regard, we
cannot ignore the many cases of vehicles forcibly taken from their owners at
gunpoint or stolen from garages and parking areas and the instances of service
station attendants or mechanics of auto repair shops using, without the owner's
consent, vehicles entrusted to them for servicing or repair.

We cannot blindly apply absolute rules based on precedents whose facts

do not jibe four square with pending cases. Every case must be determined on its
own peculiar factual circumstances. Where, as in this case, the records of the
petition fail to indicate the slightest indicia of an employer-employee
relationship between the owner and the erring driver or any consent given
by the owner for the vehicle's use, we cannot hold the owner liable.”
(Emphasis supplied)
 ~ 16 ~

It cannot be gainsaid that the foregoing pronouncements of the

Supreme Court apply with cogency to the present case. In the light of the

above jurisprudence and the testimonial evidence presented by the

defendant, there can be no hesitation in finding that the defendant

Ramon K. Crame cannot be held liable for damages arising from Beau

Barracoso’s negligence. For this reason, this case against him must

necessarily fail.

THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO HIS CLAIMS UNDER

HIS COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM.

The herein defendant has sufficiently proven that the cause of

action of the plaintiffs against him are baseless both in fact and in law.

Consequently, the complaint must be dismissed for utter lack of merit.

Such being the case, the defendant is entitled to the satisfaction of his

claims for moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and legal

expenses prayed for under his compulsory counterclaim.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court to render judgment dismissing the complaint against

defendant Ramon K. Crame for absolute lack of merit and awarding

defendant’s claims under his compulsory counterclaim.

Defendant further prays for such other reliefs just and equitable in

the premises.

Quezon City for Pasig City, January 16, 2008.

 ~ 17 ~

ANTONIO T. DE VERA
Counsel for the Defendant
32 T. Alonzo Street, Project 4, Quezon City
IBP LR No. 02162; Q.C. Chapter
PTR No. 0530785; Makati; 4-4-07
Roll No. 25344

Copy furnished:

PRADO RESPICIO & RODRIGUEZ

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
8th Floor, Summit I Tower
530 Shaw Boulevard, Wack Wack
Mandaluyong City

EXPLANATION

Due to the limited number of undersigned counsel’s messengers

rendering personal service impractical, service was made by registered
mail upon the plaintiff, through counsel, as indicated by the attached
registry receipt.

ANTONIO T. DE VERA