FORM NO.

1: COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 1

PAUL CASUGA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 75643
-versus- FOR: Unlawful Detainer

CHRISTY SALONGA,
Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

That the plaintiff, PAUL CASUGA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single,
with residence and postal address at 1137 Fulgoso Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila;
That the defendant, CHRISTY SALONGA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen,
single, with residence and postal address at 753 Maliwanag Street, Manila,
where they may be served with summons and other court processes;
The plaintiff is the owner of a land over which an apartment had been
constructed located 785 Mayhaligue Street, Manila;
By virtue of a contract of lease, the plaintiff leased unto the defendant the
aforesaid apartment for a consideration of P6,000.00 a month as rental to be
paid within the first ten (10) days of each month starting December 4, 2020;
The defendant failed to pay the agreed rental for several months starting
February 20, 2021 up to the present;

On April 4, 2021, the plaintiff sent a letter of demand to vacate the apartment
which was received by the defendant as shown in the registry return receipt
hereto attached as Annex “A”;
Despite said letter of demand which was repeated by oral demands, the
defendant failed and still refused to pay the agreed amount of rentals and to
vacated the apartment;
By reason of failure of the defendant to vacate the premises and to pay the
unpaid rentals, the plaintiff was compelled to file this complaint engaging the
services of counsel in the amount of P10,000.00.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto
this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered ordering the
defendant:

To vacate the subject premises;

To pay the amount of P6,000.00 per month as compensation for the reasonable
use of the subject premises until they finally vacate the said premises;
To pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

City of Manila, September 24, 2012.

RIVERA, DELA CRUZ AND ESCALONA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 123, Victoria Tower I
Taft Avenue, Manila

By:
Joselle Rivera
Roll of Attorney No. 98765
IBP No. 12345/2-5-12/Manila
PTR No. 87654/12-22-11/Manila
FORM NO. 2: COMPLAINT FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY

Republic of the Philippines

5th MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Second Judicial region
Naguilian, Isabela

RONALD CASTILLO
Plaintiff Civil Case No.
-vs- Forcible Entry and Damages
Atty. RAMIREZ
Defendant.
x------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFFS by counsel, to this Honorable Court respectfully avers that,
1. Plaintiff RONALD CASTILLO, of legal age, Filipino and residents of MArasat Pequno,
San Mateo, Isabela.
2. Defendant Atty. Ramirez, Filipino is a resident of Naguilian, Isabela, where they may
be served summons and other processes.
3. The plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land located in San Mateo, Isabela, containing
an area of ONE MILLION(1,000,000.00) SQUARE METERS, more or less which realty is
titled in the name as evidence by Transfer Certificate of title No. T-222222222 of the
Registry of Deeds of Isabela, photocopy of TCT No. T-222222222 is hereto attached
and made an integral part of Annex “A”.
4. Plaintiff, by themselves and through their predecessors in-interest, have been in
peaceful possession of the land continuously and uninterrupted for more than fifty
(50) years;
5. On January 28, 2020, defendant together with hired laborers without the
knowledge, consent and authority of the plaintiff, by force, strategy and stealth
entered the land described in paragraph 3, encroached on and took possession of a
portion of the land having an area of 500,000 square meters with the following
boundaries: on the Northeast by the remaining portion; and on the Southwest by a
provincial Road.
6. Simultaneous to their unlawful entry, defendant started construction of a residential
house notwithstanding repeated demands for them to stop and to desist from
further acts of dispossession.
7. Plaintiff, by themselves and through their representative, repeatedly demanded of
the defendant to vacate the area occupied by them and to deliver the peaceful
 possession of the same to them, but defendants, without any just or legal reason,
refused and continue to refuse to leave the premises and restore peaceful
possession to the plaintiffs of the portion which they unlawfully wrested from the
plaintiff.
8. Efforts for a possible settlement and/or reconciliation was exerted by the plaintiff by
seeking the intervention of barangay officials of Barangay Marasat Pequeno, San
Mateo, regrettably all efforts to amicably settle their dispute were in vein. Copy of
the certification issued by Barangay Secretary Cassie Madrigal dated Feb. 9, 2020 is
hereto appended and marked as Annex “B”.
9. As a consequence of the unlawful entry and occupation of their land by the
defendant and their subsequent refusal to vacate the premises, plaintiff were
compelled to file this action and, for this reason have to engage the services of
counsel for an agreed professional fee of P25.00
10. As further consequence of the defendant refusal to surrender and restore peaceful
possession of the land, plaintiff, suffered mental anguish, emotional disturbance,
embarrassment besmirched reputation which entitles them to recover moral and
exemplary damages amounting to not less than P50,000.00

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays the Honorable Court to render judgment;
1. Ordering the defendant to vacate the premises of the area occupied by them and to
deliver peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff or their representative
2. Ordering the defendant to remove any and structure which they, in bad faith, have
erected in the area occupied by them or, in default thereof, to order the demolition
of their building or structures which are standing in the land, all at the expense of
the defendants.
3. Condemning the defendant to pay to the plaintiff.
a. The sum of P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the sum of P5,000 as expense
of litigation;
b. Moral and exemplary damage of not less than P50,000.00; and
c. The costs of this suit:
d. Plaintiff pray for other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable in
the premises.

Ilagan, Isabela, March 4, 2020

JOHN MICHAEL
MONTANO
Counsel for the
Plaintiff

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, Ronald Castillo, of legal age, Filipino and resident of Marasat Pequeno,
after being sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and state:
 1 .I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled case.
2. I have caused the preparation and filing of this complaint
3. I have read and understood the contents of this complaint and all the
allegation contained therein are true and correct of our own knowledge and based
on authentic documents.
4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or
proceedings involving the same issues in the above entitled case before the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals of Justice or quasi-judicial body, or government agency; and
should I learn of a similar action or proceeding and/or the pendency thereof before
any other Court of Justice, quasi-judicial body or government agency, I do hereby
undertake to report the same within (5) days there from to this Honorable Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 16 th day of
March 2020 at Ilagan, Isabela.

Donald Castillo
Plaintiff

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 16th day of March 2020 at Ilagan,
Isabela.

Doc. No ______
Page No. _____
Book No.______
Series of 2020.
FORM NO. 3: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD

DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel

only on January 28, 2021;
2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the
Complaint on November 16, 2020 and thus has until
December 16, 2020 within which to submit an Answer or
Responsive Pleading;
3. However, due to the pressures of equally
urgent professional work and prior commitments, the
undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said
deadline;
 

4. As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request for

an additional period of _____________ from today
within which to submit Defendant's Answer or Responsive
Pleading. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the
undersigned to interview the available witness and study this
case further;
5. This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the
foregoing reasons.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this
Honorable Court that he be given an additional period of
_____________ from today within which to submit an Answer
or other Responsive Pleading.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Vigan, City, Ilocos Sur, Philippines, February 06, 2021.

Lyka Pimentel

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)
 (EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

Sabrina Tolledo

OPPOSING COUNSEL
FORM NO. 17: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEMURRER TO
EVIDENCE

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE
9th Judicial Region
DIPOLOG CITY
Branch VI

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff Criminal Case No. 77 -versus-

-for- Murder
RUSSELL V. CAMARILLO,
Accused
x--------------------------x

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The accused through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully states:

1. That the prosecution in the above entitled case has already rested its
case;

That the defense believes that the evidence of the prosecution against
the accused is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, thus, the defense prays for leave to file demurrer to evidence in accordance
with Section 33, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing consideration and in the

highest interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that the aforesaid motion be granted.

September 16, 2010. Dipolog City, Philippines.

FORM NO. 4: MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 30
San Fernando City, La
Union

ANGELINA TOMS,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 5420

RICHARD GONZAGA,
Respondent.
x x

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT

COMES NOW Defendant, thru undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable

Court respectfully states:

1.That the above entitled case is set for hearing on May 3,2021;

2.That counsel for defendant is afflicted with COVID-19 and is now under the
medical care of Dr. Ramos. A copy of the physician’s certificate under is
hereto attached.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the hearing set on May 3, 2021
be reset to another day preferably on the first week of June 2021 or at the
convenience of this Honorable Court.

Manila, Philippines, April 30, 2021.

Sgd. ATTY. James Alicias

Counsel for the
Defendant (Notice of
Hearing)
(Proof of Service and Explanation)
FORM NO. 9: MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully avers:

1. That the plaintiff's complaint in paragraph 5 alleges:

From August 3 to December 2019, defendant never paid anything to herein
plaintiff. The check that he issued as partial payment for the first month also
bounced. x x x(underscoring supplied)

2.The said allegation is not averred with sufficient definiteness and

particularity, specifically it does not mention the amount of the check therein
mentioned, its check number, date, and the drawee bank;

3.That a more definite statement on the matters as above-indicated is

necessary in order to enable the defendant to prepare its responsive
pleading because from the very onset of this controversy, the main dispute
was on what was actually and exactly agreed upon by the parties as the
amount of monthly rentals on the lease of plaintiff's property;

4.However, due to the fact that defendant corporation had to transfer

its liaison offices depending on its project sites, the check stub where the
above-mentioned check came from was probably misplaced and could no
longer be found;

5. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement as to particulars of

the said check which was allegedly issued by the defendants as partial
payment for the first month would definitely simplify the issues in this case,
and hopefully not to complicate the negotiations between the parties for an
amicable settlement.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully prays that an order be issued by

this Honorable Court requiring the plaintiff to make more definite statement
as to the particulars of the check mentioned in paragraph 5 of his complaint,
particularly stating its amount, check number, date, and the name of the
drawee bank.

VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Philippines, January 18, 2020.

JEROME FUENTABELLA

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)

(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

EMMA AGONCILLO

OPPOSING COUNSEL
FORM NO. 10: MOTION TO DISMISS

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Respondent, SHOEMART Inc., through the undersigned

counsel, appearing especially and solely for this purpose, and to this
Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the dismissal of the Complaint
on the following ground that THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDING PARTY.

DISCUSSION
A cursory reading of the Summons and Return of Service would readily show
that the copies of the Summons dated 07 May 2020 and the Complaint and
its corresponding annexes were allegedly delivered and tendered upon the
Movant SHOEMART Inc., through a certain MAINE MENDOZA alleged to be
the authorized personnel of Movant SHOEMART INC., Bacolod City on 28
August 2020. Copies of the said Summons and Return of Service that form
part of the records on the case are hereto pleaded as integral part of this
Motion;
 

Said service of Summons, however, constitutes an improper service of

summons amounting to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the herein
Movant Corporation SHOEMART INC. since the summons was improperly
served upon a person who is not one of those persons named or enumerated
in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure upon whom
service of summons shall be made;
The material provision on the service of summons provided for in Section 11
of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
"Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity.- When the
defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the
laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on
the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel" (underscoring ours)
It bears no further emphasis that the service of the summons was done on a
person who is not included in the exclusive enumeration provided for under
the said Section, as service was done only on an alleged authorized
personnel of the Movant Corporation;
This new revision of the Rules of Court for the service of summon is a clear
departure from the old rule as stated in Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court which provided that:

"SECTION 13.Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. - If

the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or
a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the
president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors."

It must be equally noted that the changes in the new rules are substantial
and not just general semantics as the new rules restricted the service of
summons on persons clearly enumerated therein. In effect, the new
provision makes it more specific and clear such that in the case of the word
"manager", it was made more precise and changed to "general manager",
"secretary" to "corporate secretary", and excluding therefrom agent and
director;
The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept
summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is under the new rules,
limited and more clearly specified, departure from which is fatal to the
validity of the service of the summons and resulting in the failure of the
court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent corporation.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint with respect to the
Movant Corporation be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

BACOLOD CITY, Philippines, 24th Day of September 2020.

CARLO RIMANDO

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)

(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

JOSHUA CONCEPCION

OPPOSING COUNSEL
FORM NO. 14: MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

COMES NOW the Intervenor, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully requests for leave to intervene in the
above-captioned case, for the following reasons:

That the Intervenor is a purchaser of some of the subdivided portions of Lot

No. 23456, the subject matter of the above-captioned case;

That the Intervenor has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the
success of the complainant, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by
a distribution or other disposition of the parcel of land, subject matter of the
above-captioned case;

That this intervention will not, in the least, unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties in the case;
That the Intervenor's rights can be fully protected in this proceeding rather
than by filing a separate proceeding.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the said INTERVENOR be

allowed to intervene in this action by filing a Complaint in Intervention, a
copy of which is attached to this motion.
VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Philippines, 13th Day of March 2021.
 MAX MEDINA

(COUNSEL)

COPY FURNISHED:

TIM SOLANO

(OPPOSING COUNSEL)

FORM NO. 15: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
 METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch LXII (62)
Makati City

STERLING BANK OF ASIA,

                Plaintiff,

                    - versus -                                             Civil Case No. 456789

JANELLA MARIE REYES,

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

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

          Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully alleges that:

1.    On May 5, 2020, plaintiff sued defendant for a sum of money in the amount of
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300, 000.00);

2.    In his Answer, defendant admitted the obligation and merely stated that he was
asking to be given an extension of time to pay his obligation but that plaintiff
instead filed the Complaint; 
3.    Said Answer has not tendered any issue and in fact it can be read therefrom that
defendant admitted the obligation; consequently, a judgment on the pleadings
may be rendered. 

         WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court render a

judgment on the pleadings.
  
  Makati City, Philippines. August 5, 2020.

                                                                             JAEL CORTEZ
                                   Counsel for Plaintiff

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

MeTC - Branch 62
Makati City

MIKE TAN
Counsel for the Defendant
1234 Zamora Street, Pasay City 

Greetings!
      
Please take notice that the undersigned counsel will submit the foregoing
Motion to the Honorable Court on August 27, 2020 at 9:30 in the morning for its
favorable consideration and approval.

                                                                                            JAEL CORTEZ
                                           
Copy furnished by registered mail:
     
MIKE TAN
Counsel for the Defendant
2233 Zamora Street, Pasay City

EXPLANATION

        Due to lack of messengerial services to effect personal service, a copy of

the foregoing motion was sent to defendant's counsel through registered mail.
                                                                                            JAEL CORTEZ
FORM NO.18: MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT

Motion to Declare Defendant in Default

Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states

1. The records of the Honorable Court show that Defendant was served with
copy of the summons and of the complaint, together with annexes thereto
on _____________;
2. Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant JOSEPHINE
GAZMEN has failed to file his Answer within the reglementary period
specified by the Rules of Court despite the service of the summons and the
complaint;
3. As such, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant JOSEPHINE GAZMEN be
declared in default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable
Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.
 

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant JOSEPHINE GAZMEN
be declared in default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable
Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Philippines, this 25th Day of April 2021.

Faith Lucas

(Counsel for the Plaintiif)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)
(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

Diana Directo

Counsel for the Defendant

FORM NO. 19: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL

MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL

Accused, through counsel, by way of a special appearance solely for this

purpose, respectfully alleges:

1. That the accused has been charged with rape and that the bail for his
provisional release has been set at P200, 000.00 for each count of rape;

2. That the accused is a poor fellow of very limited means such that it is
impossible for him to pay the full amount of his bond and is therefore
constrained to request for a reduction of the amount of bail;

3. That it would be advantageous to everyone if he be given temporary

liberty thereby allowing him to continue with his gainful employment;

4. As such, accused appeals to the mercy and compassion of this Honorable

Court and respectfully requests that his bail be reduced to P120, 000.00.

5. That this motion for reduction of bail is being filed without prejudice to
any other remedy which may be available to the accused and that the
accused expressly reserves the right to question the legality of the issuance
of the search warrant or his warrantless arrest if the circumstances would so
warrant.

WHEREFORE, accused respectfully prays that his bail be reduced to P120,

000.00.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Philippines, April 28, 2021.

KYFFER MENDOZA

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)

(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

JAMES VILLENA

OPPOSING COUNSEL
FORM NO. 21: MOTION TO QUASH

Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 1, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Anna Tugade                      
   Plaintiff,
 Crim Case No.23456
For Homicide
-versus-                                
   

Josefa Chan,
                             Accused.
x------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH

       Accused, by his undersigned attorney, respectfully moves to quash the

information filed against him on the ground that:

1. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the same offense
charged.

ARGUMENTS

1. For the lack of such prior written authority, the inescapable result is that the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case because there is a defect in the information.

2. It is for the same reason that there is no point in compelling petitioner to undergo trial
under a defective information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction.
 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the information filed against the
accused be dismissed.

        Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

        Manila, 29 November 2021

                                    
                                                                                               SOLENN DEUZ
                                                                      Counsel for Accused

(With Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service and Explanation)