“x x x.
URGENT EX PARTE MANIFESTATION
THE DEFENDANTS, by
counsel, respectfully state:
1. The
instant case was filed by Corporate Plaintiff on xxx thru its Corporate
Secretary xxx as the allegedly authorized representative of the Corporate
Plaintiff. She signed the Verification
and Anti-Forum Shopping Certification thereof.
2. In
the Board Resolution No. xxx, dated xxx, of the Corporate Plaintiff attached
to the Complaint as Annex “A”
thereof, a certain Xxx who appeared to be a Director
of the Corporate Plaintiff, co-signed the same.
3. For
the information of the Court, the said Xxx, who misrepresents herself as
the so-called “xxx Legitimate President”, has issued a so-called “NEWS LETTER”, dated xxx, addressed to the homeowners of xxx Subdivision
Homeowners Association, Inc., entitled xxx.
4. A
copy thereof is attached hereto as Annex
“A” hereof.
5. Inter alia, in the said document, xxx misrepresented
to the xxx homeowners/water consumers, thus:
5.1.
Paragraph
xxx, Page xxx:
“Sa pagdinig na ginanap sa Regional Trial
Court (RTC) sa sala ni Judge xxx nitong nakaraang xxx, SA GALIT NA PANGUNGUSAP
NA BINITAWAN NI JUDGE xxx bagamat ipagpapatuloy ang pagdinig sa xxx ay NAGBIGAY
NA ITO NG BABALA AT PAHIWATIG SA ILLEGAL NA GRUPO NI xxx, ET. AL., sa pagsuway
nila sa kanyang kautusan xxxx.”
5.2.
Paragraph xxx, Page xxx:
“Sa pagdinig sa RTC nitong nakaraang xxx,
GALIT NA NAGBIGAY NG PANGUNGUSAP NA MAY BABALA SI JUDGE xxx SA ILLEGAL NA GRUPO
NI xxx, ET. AL., “ARE YOU DOING THIS? IF YOU ARE DOING THIS, YOU BETTER STOP.”
SABAY SA PAGPUKPOK KA KANYANG GAVEL. ANG GALIT NA KATANUNGAN AT PAGSASALITA NI
JUDGE xxx AY UKOL SA PETITION FOR CONTEMPT NA LUMABAG SILA xxx, ET. AL., SA
KAUTUSAN NG KORTE.”
6. xxx
made it appear that the Presiding Judge of this Court was predisposed against the persons, status, legal position, and claims
of the herein Defendants insofar as the instant case is concerned by publicly alleging:
6.1.
That the Judge was personally mad and angry
at the Defendants during the hearing held on June 18, 2015, i.e.
“SA
GALIT NA PANGUNGUSAP NA BINITAWAN NI JUDGE x x x.”,
6.1.1.
xxx,
in effect, unjustly and unethically alleged therein that the mind and heart of
the Judge were deeply sympathetic to the Plaintiff and emotionally antagonistic
against the herein Defendants.
6.2.
That the
Judge had WARNED the Defendants about the alleged violations of the Defendants,
hence, alleging in effect that the Judge had, in a partial and biased manner, PREJUDGED the issue of alleged indirect
contempt issue against the Defendants that was still pending before him and that has yet to be argued by the
parties and that has yet to be heard and resolved by the Judge, i.e.,
thus:
“x x x (B)agamat ipagpapatuloy ang pagdinig
sa xxx ay NAGBIGAY NA ITO NG BABALA AT PAHIWATIG SA ILLEGAL NA GRUPO NI xxx,
ET. AL., sa pagsuway nila sa kanyang kautusan x x x.”
6.3.
That the Judge had in effect prematurely and in a biased manner concluded:
6.3.1.
That the xxx was an illegal/illegitimate xxx board;
and
6.3.2.
That the mind of the Judge was inclined in personal and sentimental sympathy and inclination
in favor of the Plaintiff and of xxx (who misrepresents herself as the xxx “legitimate”
president).
6.4.
The truth of the matter is that the Court has NO JURISDICTION on
matters that relate to the internal administration and elections of leaders of
a Homeowners Association, such as the xxx, the same being an exclusive power/jurisdiction of the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). [Cf. “MAGNA CARTA FOR HOMEOWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION”, R.A. 9904).
7. xxx is not a party to the instant case
(although it appears that she is the mastermind
behind the commencement of the instant case against the Defendants).
8. The
Defendants reserve the right to file a separate
Rule 71 petition for indirect contempt against xxx to teach her a lesson to respect the public image of neutrality and
fairness of the Court as a dispenser of justice. (xxx is a lawyer).
9. The
Defendants are reporting to the Court the foregoing contumacious acts of xxx,
who is a member of the Bar, for
purposes only of information and for the record.
9.1.
This is not a petition for indirect contempt or a motion for
show-cause against xxx, who is not a
party to the instant case.
9.2.
Rule 71 requires a separate petition for indirect contempt in matters like
this.
FOR THE RECORD. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
xxx City, July xxx, 2015.
LASERNA
CUEVA-MERCADER
LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Defendants
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C. V. Starr Ave.
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740
Tel. Nos. 8725443 & 8462539
X x x.
MANUEL LASERNA JR.
X x x.
X x x.”
