Example of Memorandum on the Merits (Judicial Partition)

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

Branch __

_______ CITY

 

 

AAAAAA & BBBBBBB, Plaintiffs                -Versus-   CCCCCCC, Defendant. X----------------------------------------

CIVIL CASE NO. ____________ For: JUDICIAL PARTITION

 

 

MEMORANDUM ON THE MERITS

 

 

         PLAINTIFFS, through counsel, most respectfully submit this Memorandum.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 

         Spouses DDDDD and EEEEEE were married on May 23, 1954. Out of that union, three children were born, namely, AAAAA and BBBBBB (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiffs) and CCCCCC (hereinafter referred to as Defendant). In their lifetime, the couple are the absolute owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-______________ – marked as Exhibit – “P”, thru a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Absolute Sale dated ________________ – marked as Exhibit – “A”.

 

         The couple then built a house on the said lot and over the years, renovated and remodeled the said house with the combination of their pensions and the joint financial contribution from their three grown-up children. When the spouses died on _______________ and on __________________, they left behind the said house and lot in the possession of the siblings without dividing the said property.

 

         Trouble ensued when one of the siblings – the herein defendant appropriate the whole property to himself, leaving the sisters with nothing and even kicking them out. Feeling hopeless and despondent because for all the hard work and sacrifice they have invested in the said property, the Plaintiffs seek help from the barangay, which was largely ignored by Defendant. To add to their woes, Plaintiffs also found out that the tax declaration has been transferred in the name of Defendant without their knowledge and consent. Hence, this Complaint.

 

 

ISSUE

 

1.   Are the AAAAA and BBBBBB are entitled to judicial partition of Lot No. ________ and the house built on Lot No. ___________?

DISCUSSION

 

There are several pertinent provisions set forth in the New Civil Code that would serve as the guiding posts, with focus on the rules of co-ownership and partition, to wit:

 

Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights.The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied.

 

Art. 1085. In the partition of the estate, equality shall be observed as far as possible, dividing the property into lots, or assigning to each of the co-heirs things of the same nature, quality and kind. (1061)

Art. 1086. Should a thing be indivisible, or would be much impaired by its being divided, it may be adjudicated to one of the heirs, provided he shall pay the others the excess in cash.

Nevertheless, if any of the heirs should demand that the thing be sold at public auction and that strangers be allowed to bid, this must be done. (1062)

Art. 1087. In the partition the co-heirs shall reimburse one another for the income and fruits which each one of them may have received from any property of the estate, for any useful and necessary expenses made upon such property, and for any damage thereto through malice or neglect. (1063)

 

Plaintiffs and defendant are co-owners of the subject property.

 

         Co-ownership exists when the ownership of an undivided thing or a right belongs to different persons. Sources of co-ownership come from law, contract, chance, occupation or occupancy, or by will and succession.

 

         On the case at hand, plaintiffs and defendant, being the heirs of their parents naturally become co-owners of the property upon the death of their parents DDDDDDD and EEEEEEEEEEEE by operation of law, as provided for in Article 777 of the New Civil Code wherein the rights of succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent as evidenced by the Death Certificates of DDDDDDD and EEEEEEEEE – marked as Exhibits “B” and “C” and the birth certificates of the Plaintiffs – marked as Exhibits “D” and “E”, to prove their filial relationship and right as heirs of DDDDDDDDD and EEEEEEEE.

 

Plaintiffs entitled to judicial partition of the property.

 

As a general rule, co-ownership is frowned upon except when there is an expressed intent of the testator that forbids the division of said property. In the case at bar, no such prohibition existed because both parents died without leaving any will.

 

As can be gleaned in the following provisions:

 

Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.

 

Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement.

 

A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years.

 

Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.

 

Art. 498. Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed. (404)

 

In accordance with law and jurisprudence, Plaintiffs are entitled to their pro-indiviso shares in the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-_____ being the legitimate heirs of their parents. Should division be impossible, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the cash equivalent of their share from the proceeds of the sale of such property.

 

Such was not the case. They were forcefully kicked out of the property and deprived of their right as co-owners. They were forced to rent instead of being able to enjoy the property that they themselves have contributed financial help in renovating and remodeling the house.  This should not be tolerated.

 

         Defendant has no right to appropriate property to himself.

 

         One of the sources of the hurt and disappointment of the Plaintiffs was the discovery that the Defendant had transferred the tax declaration in his name without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiffs, absent any documents that can support the transfer.

 

         Granting arguendo that tax declarations, coupled with possession and occupation, are the best indices for ownership, this cannot hold sway as no such repudiation has been carried out by Plaintiffs in the aforesaid property. 

 

The Supreme Court elucidated in the case of Paz Galvez, Carlos Tam, and Tycoon Properties, Inc.  vs. Hon. Court Of Appeals And Porfirio Galvez, G.R. No. 157954. March 24, 2006.

 

It is a fundamental principle that a co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co-ownership.  In Santos v. Santos, citing the earlier case of Adille v. Court of Appeals, this Court found occasion to rule that:

“Prescription, as a mode of terminating a relation of co-ownership, must have been preceded by repudiation (of the co-ownership).  The act of repudiation, in turn, is subject to certain conditions:  (1) a co-owner repudiates the co-ownership; (2)  such an act of repudiation is clearly made known to the other co-owners; (3)  the evidence thereon is clear and conclusive; and (4)  he has been in possession through open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property for the period required by law.

 

For title to prescribe in favor of a co-owner there must be a clear showing that he has repudiated the claims of the other co-owners and the latter has been categorically advised of the exclusive claim he is making to the property in question.  The rule requires a clear repudiation of the co-ownership duly communicated to the other co-owners.  It is only when such unequivocal notice has been given that the period of prescription will begin to run against the other co-owners and ultimately divest them of their own title if they do not seasonably defend it.

 

To sustain a plea of prescription, it must always clearly appear that one who was originally a joint owner has repudiated the claims of his co-owners, and that his co-owners were apprised or should have been apprised of his claim of adverse and exclusive ownership before the alleged prescriptive period began to run.

Prescription only sets in when there is a clear repudiation of the co-owner of his share. On the case at hand, there is no such repudiation by Plaintiffs. In fact, they are fighting tooth and nail to be able to be restored and gain possession of the property of which they are clearly co-owners.”

 

Moreover, as testified by the Plaintiffs, witness – _____________, and the City Engineer of __________, subsequently proven by the Building Permit Application – marked as Exhibit “R” and the Certification – marked as Exhibit “O”, that there was an existing house built thereon in view of the fact the permit was just a renovation and not for new building. ___________ - the carpenter and the witness of the Defendant, also said in his testimony that before he started working on the disputed land, there was already an existing house thereon.

 

Moreover, the previous three (3) tax declaration for the improvements on Lot No. ________, namely: Tax Declaration No. ___________- marked as Exhibit “F”, Tax Declaration No. ____________ - marked as Exhibit “G”, and Tax Declaration No. ______________ - marked as Exhibit “H”, are all under the name of DDDDDD and EEEEEEEEEEEEEE. It was only in the Tax Declaration No. ____________ effective for the year 2001 – marked as Exhibit “I” and Tax Declaration No. _____________ effective for the year 2014 – marked as Exhibit – “J”, that the names of CCCCCCCCC and FFFFFF were mentioned.

 

Thus, since there was an existing house thereon. A document or deed conveying house is needed to support the Defendant’s claim that he owned the house exclusively. But during the testimony of the City Assessor of __________, she categorically stated that there was no any deed of conveyance submitted to their office by the Defendant. Clearly, the said house constructed thereon is owned by the siblings in common and not owned exclusively by the Defendant.

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:

1.                     Render judgment that the herein Plaintiffs be ordered to acquire back their possession, thus, to exercise their right to use and enjoy the property subject of this case;

2.                     That the aforementioned property owned in common by the herein Plaintiffs and Defendant be partitioned judicially;

3.                     That the Defendant be held liable for attorney's fees, damages, costs and other expenses of this case;

4.                     Plaintiffs pray for such other reliefs, just and, equitable in the foregoing premises;

 

         Respectfully submitted, August 31, 2023.

 

 

ATTY. XXXXXX

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Roll No. ___

PTR. No. ____- 01/09/2023

IBP No. ___ - 01/20/2023

MCLE No. VII-____ until 4/14/2025

_____ City,

                     ___________, Philippines

       

 

 

Copy furnished:

 

 

Atty. ____________

__________ Office

___________ City

 

Please visit my ACCOUNTS: 

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE 

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE 

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM 

Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives. 

Pond5 Artist Page

Compliance guide for the Employers.

 

                            This table explains the coverage of the monetary benefits of an employee in a company, by classifying the company with 1-5 workers, 1-9 workers and 10 and more workers. 

source: 2022_02_22_Handbook_on_Workers_Statutory_Monetary_Benefits_2022_edition (1).pdf

Please visit my ACCOUNTS: 

SUI GENERIS YOUTUBE 

SUI GENERIS FACEBOOK PAGE 

SUI GENERIS INSTAGRAM 

Example of Memorandum on Appeal

 

MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL 

            The COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT _____________________________, thru counsel, by way of APPEAL, respectfully states: 

The PARTIES:

Complainant-Appellant is Filipino, married, of legal age and a resident of ______________________.

Respondent-Appellee is likewise Filipino, married, of legal age and a resident of _______________________;

                            INTRODUCTION

The subject matter of this Memorandum on Appeal is the DECISION, dated June 30, 2023, of Labor Arbiter _________________________, declaring herein Complainant-Appellant as not dismissed by respondent and that he is entitled only to 13^th month pay and attorney’s fees in the amount of THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P33,000.00) .

                                                       TIMELINESS

The herein Complainant- Appellant received on August 8, 2023, a copy via registered mail of the questioned Decision, dated June 30, 2023, hence, his tenth day to file this Memorandum on Appeal shall expire on August 18, 2023, as per Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.

      ADOPTION CLAUSE

For the record and for convenience, the herein Complainant- Appellant hereby adopts into this Memorandum on Appeal, by incorporation and reference, all the allegations and arguments stated in --- as well as all the supporting documents annexed to --- (a) his MAIN POSITION PAPER filed with the Arbiter a quo on March 3, 2023;

ISSUES

The herein Complainant- Appellant respectfully submits that the Labor Arbiter a quo abused his discretion and committed serious errors of fact and law which, if not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the Complainant- Appellant in finding that the Complainant- Appellant was:

a.     not forcefully and abruptly dismissed from service in 2022,

b.    not entitled to separation pay, overtime pay, premium for holiday pay and rest day and

c.     not entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

   DISCUSSION

FACTS OF THE CASE

Complainant - Appellant was hired by Respondent-Appellee as caretaker of several properties from May 4, 2013 until his abrupt dismissal from service in 2022. The point of contention and cause of the rift stemmed from the insistence of Complainant - Appellant and the deliberate and obstinate refusal of Respondent-Appellee to represent him as his employer in the payment of monthly SSS benefits and instead instructed him to file as “self-employed”. Thus, he was told not to report to work because he reported him to DOLE, during their last conciliation-mediation dated November 29, 2022 at around 10:00 am at DOLE Dumaguete City and presided by _____________________, Administrative Aide VI of DOLE. In their defense, respondent alleged that it was the Complainant - Appellant who voluntarily resigned because of the Respondent-Appellee’s refusal to grant him a loan in the amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000). Complainant - Appellant allegedly wanted the loan to be unconditional but Respondent-Appellee wanted to put it into writing. Feeling aggrieved, Complainant - Appellant reported Respondent-Appellee to DOLE and vacated the premises occupied by him. Complainant - Appellant subsequently filed a case with the Labor Arbiter. After the submission of the respective pleadings of both parties, in its Decision dated July 31, 2023, the Labor Arbiter found that the Complainant - Appellant was not dismissed by Respondent-Appellee and awarded him the amount of thirty three thousand pesos as payment of service incentive leave and attorney’s fees. Hence, this appeal. 

ARGUMENTS

1.       COMPLAINANT - APPELLANT WAS DISMISSED FROM WORK.

Philippine jurisprudence is replete with cases wherein the security and well-being of an employee is given the utmost importance as Labor Law, imbued with social justice, seeks to protect the rights of an employee above everything else.

In the case at hand, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Complainant - Appellant was not dismissed from his work and agreed with the Respondent- Appellee that he left or voluntarily resigned when he vacated the premises that he used while working with the Respondent- Appellee after there was tension between the two after Complainant- Appellant felt aggrieved that he was not granted a loan.

Furthermore, the Labor Arbiter based the facts of the case on the affidavit executed by witnesses of Respondent- Appellee which is a COMPLETE LIE, and should be dealt by law for lying to favor one of the parties in a case, it is also self-serving and is not supported by evidence to warrant the justification and award for damages.

The following are the untruthful statements claimed in the Affidavit:

1.    That the Complainant- Appellant was employed by the Respondent-Appellee last 2018, which is incorrect. He was hired last 2013, after the apartment was turned over by the engineer to the Respondent – Appellee.

2.    That truth is that he was required to work on Sunday and will only be excused if the Respondent – Appellee would allow him not to work on Sunday and Holiday.

3.    The two witnesses should have no knowledge about the bonus because they were hired last November 2022 and the Complainant – Appellant was terminated on that month also.

4.    That Complainant -Appellant would even ask the Respondent – Appellee if he would be paid double pay for working on holidays like Christmas and New Year day.

5.     That the Respondent- Complainant was the one who offered the Complainant-Appellant to stay in the premises.

6.    And about the loan, yes it is true that he applied for a loan of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) with Respondent-Appellee, because he wanted to buy a lot for himself. But the Respondent- Complainant said that he will only approve his loan only if his name will be on the Deed of Absolute Sale, instead of the Complainant-Appellant. That is when the Complainant-Appellant withdrew his application for a loan with the Respondent-Appellee.

The discussion set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE vs. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO (G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020) is particularly instructive.

     “it is a well-established rule that the party-litigant who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary to establish his/her claim has the burden of proving the same by the amount of evidence required by law, which, in labor proceedings, is substantial evidence, or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." To be clear, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values, "proof beyond reasonable doubt is placed at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order." Thus, in the hierarchy of evidence, it is the least demanding. "Corollarily, the ground for the dismissal of an employee does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt." The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence - which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.

          x xx

The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings. 

Thus, in Bantolino v. Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.,66 this Court held that:

[A]dministrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. The submission by respondent, citing People v. Sorrel, that an affidavit not testified to in a trial, is mere hearsay evidence and has no real evidentiary value, cannot find relevance in the present case considering that a criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of an administrative proceeding. x xx(Citation omitted)

x xx

Along the same lines, we held in Southern Cotabato Development and Construction Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission 68 that Article 221 (now 227) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that "the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity [shall not be controlling]" and that the LA and the NLRC shall "use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law and procedure, all in the interest of due process." Clearly, to disregard the affidavits on the ground that they were taken ex-parte would necessarily require the application of the technical rules of evidence and thereby negate the purpose of the summary nature of labor proceedings mandated by the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure.

The Labor Arbiter contended that Complainant - Appellant failed to produce any iota of proof of the termination of his employment.  His dismissal from his work was made verbally. He was told not to report to work because he reported him to DOLE. This happened during their last conciliation-mediation dated November 29, 2022 at around 10:00 am at DOLE ___________________ and presided by ________________________, Administrative Aide VI of DOLE. It was a private concern where there was no witness or rather cannot be a witness, as per Department Order 151-16 Section 9. Confidentiality of Proceedings and Minutes. - Information and statements given in confidence at the conciliation-mediation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in any arbitration proceedings, except when there is waiver of confidentiality.

The Respondent-Appellee had the upper hand. A person who has been dependent on the generosity of another for living wages cannot dare question or protest that order. His subsequent abandonment of his living quarters was proof that respondent had told him to leave. Also he did not tender any resignation letter to prove that he voluntarily left his assignment.

Furthermore, the fact that he stayed with his employer for 10 years, is a clear statement on his side that he like his job with the said employer and he cannot just leave his job without being ask to leave because his employment is his bread and butter.

Indeed, an act, to be considered as amounting to constructive dismissal, must be a display of utter discrimination or insensibility on the part of the employer so intense that it becomes unbearable for the employee to continue with his employment.

The subsequent leaving of the Complainant- Appellant was a direct result of these acts. In fact, the tension between the two parties was noted by the witnesses of the Respondent-Appellee, ____________________________, but they attributed the blame to Complainant-Appellant.

As aforementioned, the Labor Arbiter is tasked with the responsibility of determining the veracity and truthfulness of the claims of both parties while at the same time keeping in mind the well-being of the employee as its primordial importance. The action of the Labor Arbiter is bereft and wanting in this case.

Likewise, in G.R. No. 218282, September 09, 2020 REDENTOR Y. AGUSTIN, PETITIONER, VS. ALPHALAND CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS stated that the dismissal of regular employees by the employer requires the observance of the two-fold due process, namely: (1) substantive due process; and (2) procedural due process. The Respondent-Appellee failed to observe both substantive and procedural due process in dismissing Complainant- Appellant from employment. Substantive due process means that the dismissal must be for any of the: (1) just causes provided under Article 297 of the Labor Code or the company rules and regulations promulgated by the employer; or (2) authorized causes under Article 298 and 299 thereof. None of these causes exist. Furthermore, the Respondent-Appellee did not observe the procedural due process in terminating an employee.

2.       COMPLAINANT- APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY, OVERTIME PAY, AND PREMIUM FOR HOLIDAY PAY AND REST DAY.

In claims for payment of salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. This likewise stems from the fact that all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents - which will show that the differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid - are not in the possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the employer.

In this case nothing in the record of the case that showed that the employer pay the Complainant - Appellant with Premium Pay for holiday and rest day and 13th month pay. The Respondent - Appellee only manifested in the Affidavit that his former employees were receiving such benefits.

In illegal dismissal cases, where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. It must be emphasized that this payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of back wages. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.

Wenphil Corporation v. Abing G.R. No. 207983, 07 April 2014, ..the relief of separation pay may be granted in lieu of reinstatement but it cannot be a substitute for the payment of backwages. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer, separation pay should be granted. In effect, an illegally dismissed employee should be entitled to either reinstatement - if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer be viable, plus backwages in either instance. The rationale for such policy of distinction was vividly explained in Santos v. NRC under these terms: Though the grant of reinstatement commonly carries with it an award of backwages, the inappropriateness or non-availability of one does not carry with it the inappropriateness or non-availability of the other. Separation pay was awarded in favor of petitioner Lydia Santos because the NLRC found that her reinstatement was no longer feasible or appropriate. As the term suggests, separation pay is the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance from the service and, as correctly noted by the Solicitor General in his Comment, is designed to provide the employee with "the wherewithal during the period that he is looking for another employment." .. Put a little differently, payment of backwages is a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of unlawful dismissal; separation pay, in contrast, is oriented towards the immediate future, the transitional period the dismissed employee must undergo before locating a replacement job..

We [the Supreme Court] emphasize that the basis for the payment of backwages is different from that of the award of separation pay. Separation pay is granted where reinstatement is no longer advisable because of strained relations between the employee and the employer. Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal. The basis for computing separation pay is usually the length of the employee's past service, while that for backwages is the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working. Whereas separation pay was only paid to employee separated through authorized causes as provided in the Labor Code, the above jurisprudence provided for additional circumstances: in lieu of reinstatement and as an act of social justice.

3.       COMPLAINANT - APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES

The Labor Arbiter ruled that Complainant- appellant is not entitled to damages because of failure to prove the basis thereof.

The Labor Arbiter once again failed to recognize that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled time and again in favor of the working class and granted them a right to recover damages for dismissals tainted with bad faith.

The award of such damages is based not on the Labor Code but on Article 2220 of the Civil Code. Indeed, moral damages are recoverable when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner.

Time and again, in labor cases, the livelihood, the name and the reputation of the employee is what is at stake. Employees are expendable. They can easily be replaced. It is for that reason why the law favors the working man above all else.

   PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed:

1.    That the appealed DECISION, dated July 30, 2023, be MODIFIED;

2.    That the Complainant-Appellant be declared as having been DISMISSED by the Respondent - Appellee.

3.    That the Respondent - Appellee be ordered to pay or issue to the Complainant - Appellant, as the case may be the following amounts:

          A.  Separation pay

B.  Overtime pay

C.  Premium for holiday pay and rest day

           D.  Moral and exemplary damages

           E. Attorney’s Fees equivalent to Ten Percent (10%) of the damages awarded.

FINALLY, the Complainant - Appellant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises. 

ATTY. ______________________

Counsel for the Complainant- Appellant

Roll No. XXXXX

PTR. No. XXXXXX

IBP No. XXXXXXX

MCLE No. VII-0015413 until 4/14/2025

XXXXXXXXX

VERIFICATION

AND

ANTI-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATION

            I, ________________________, of legal age, married, Filipino, and with postal address at ____________________, under oath, depose: 

That I am the Complainant-Appellant in the foregoing Memorandum of Appeal; that I caused the preparation thereof; that I have read its contents; and that the same are true and correct of my own direct/personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

            Further, pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, I hereby certify that I have not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and that if I should hereafter learn that other similar or related actions or proceedings has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Commission.

            Dumaguete City, August 18, 2023.

__________________________

Affiant/Complainant -Appellant

         SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME in ___________ on _____________________, affiant showing his competent proof of identity as follows: _________________No. _________________.

 Doc. No.

Page No.

Book No.

Series of 2023.

 

Copy Furnished:

Atty. xxxxxxx

Counsel for Respondent-Appellee

X x x x 

EXPLANATION

            A copy of this pledging is served on the adverse counsel via registered mail instead of via personal service due to the urgency of filing the same and due to the distance of the law office address of the adverse counsel.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

            I, ______________________________, of legal age, married, Filipino, and with postal address at ____________, under oath, depose: 

That I am the Complainant-Appellant in the foregoing Memorandum of Appeal;

That on ___________________ I served a copy of the foregoing Memorandum on Appeal on the adverse counsel in the instant case via registered mail with return card, to wit:

Atty. xxxxxxxx

Counsel for Appellee- Respondent

 

                        Reg. Rec. No. ______________________

                        Date____________          PO ____________

           

That the original of the aforementioned registry receipt is attached above, opposite the names of the adverse counsel to prove the foregoing statement.

That I am executing this affidavit of service as per Rule VI (Appeals) of the NLRC Rules of Procedure to prove the fact of service of a copy of the foregoing Memorandum on Appeal on the aforementioned adverse counsel.

            Dumaguete City, August ____, 2023.

                                                 ________________________

Complainant-Appellant

            SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME in ___________ on _____________________, affiant showing his competent proof of identity as follows: LTO Driver’s License No. __________________________.                                                                                             

Doc. No.

Page No.

Book No.

Series of 2023

 

 Get incredible stock video clips and photos from the world's most talented independent creatives. 

Pond5 Artist Page