Friday, April 1, 2016

Sample expanded joint judicial affidavit of two witnesses to serve as their direct examination, per the Rule on Judicial Affidavit, on the issue of the dissolution of a preliminary injunction



This is a sample expanded joint judicial affidavit of two witnesses, which serves as their direct examination in a civil case, per the Rule on Judicial Affidavit. It refers to a pending motion for the dissolution of the preliminary injunction issued by the court. We are sharing this for the legal research purposes of our readers.

                                   
                                    “x x x.

                        JOINT JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
Per “Rule on Judicial Affidavit”, A.M. No. 12-8-8-12, September 4, 2012.

IN RELATION TO THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) PENDING MOTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS ON THE MATTER OF THE REQUESTED POSTING BY THE DEFENDANTS OF A “COUNTER INJUNCTION BOND” TO LIFT THE PRELIINARY INJUCNTION EARLIER ISSED BY THE HONORABLE COURT, TO WIT:

(1)            “URGENT MOTION TO RECALL AND REVOKE THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 13, 2015; AND TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREUNDER”, dated July 7, 2015;

(2)           “VERIFIED AD CAUTELAM  SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION (In Relation to the Defendants Pending “URGENT MOTION TO RECALL AND REVOKE THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 13, 2015; AND TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREUNDER”, dated July 7, 2015)”, dated July 8, 2015;

(3)           MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF THE ‘INJUNCTION COUNTERBOND’ ISSUE UNDER SEC. 6, RULE 58”, dated August 15, 2015.

I.                  PRELIMINARY INFORMATION.
NAME AND OTHER PERSONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WITNESS.

Names            :           x x x;
Age                 :           xxx;
Address          :           x x x;
Occupation    :           xxx;
Citizenship  :            xxx;
Language       :           English.

Names            :           xxx;
Age                 :           xxx;
Address          :           xxx;
Occupation    :           xxx;
Citizenship    :            Filipino;
Language       :           English.


II.              LAWYER WHO CONDUCTED OR SUPERVISED THE EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS.

Name              :           Atty. xxx.
Address          :           LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW
OFFICES, Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740.
Place of
Examination:             LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES,
Law Offices, Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740.

III.          OFFER.

The joint testimony of the undersigned affiants-witnesses-defendants xxx and xxx is being offered to prove the merits of their aforecited three (3) pending motions to be ALLOWED BY THE COURT TO POST A COUNTER-INJUNCTION BOND TO LIFT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION EARLIER ISSUED BY THE COURT.


IV.            JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT PROPER.

1.         Q – Please state your respective names, ages, residences, and occupations.

A – We are xxx and xxx. Our respective personal circumstances are stated in Part I hereof, supra (See: “PRELIMINARY INFORMATION: NAME AND OTHER PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WITNESS”).

2.      Q- Why are you here now?

A – To give our joint sworn statement by way of a judicial affidavit, the same to constitute as our joint direct testimony in support of our above captioned three (3) pending motions (See “Title” of this pleading), to wit:

(1)      “URGENT MOTION TO RECALL AND REVOKE THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 13, 2015; AND TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREUNDER”, dated July 7, 2015;

(2)      “VERIFIED AD CAUTELAM  SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION (In Relation to the Defendants Pending “URGENT MOTION TO RECALL AND REVOKE THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 13, 2015; AND TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREUNDER”, dated July 7, 2015)”, dated July 8, 2015;

“MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF THE ‘INJUNCTION COUNTERBOND’ ISSUE UNDER SEC. 6, RULE 58”, dated August 15, 2015.

3.      Q- For the record, please state the name  and  address  of  the  Lawyer  who  is now conducting  or supervising your examination  and  the  place  where  the examination is being held now?

A –Our Legal Counsel, Atty. xxx is conducting or supervising my examination now at his law office (Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices) located at Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740.

4.      Q – In what language do you want your examination to be conducted?

A – In English, Sir.

5.      Q – Do you undertake to answer the questions to be asked of you, fully conscious that you will do so under oath, and that you may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury?

A – Yes, Sir.

6.      Q – Are you the same xxx and xxx who are co-defendants in this case?

A – Yes, Sir.

7.      Q – Do you know the entity xxx SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (“xxx” for brevity)?

A – Yes, Sir.

8.      Q – Why do you know the entity xxx?

A – The undersigned XXX XXX is the incumbent/holdover President of XXX while the undersigned XXX XXX is the incumbent/holdover Vice President and the Chairman of the Technical and Legal Committee of XXX.


9.      Q – Please state the names and positions of the other directors/officers of your XXX Board under your leadership.

A – The names of the directors/officers who compose the incumbent/holdover XXX Board are as follows:

NAME                                                                        POSITION

1.      XXX XXX                                     President
2.      XXX XXX                                     Vice President and
Chairman, Technical
and Legal Committee (TLC)
3.      XXX                                                          Secretary
4.      XXX                                                          Treasurer
5.      xxx                                                           Auditor
6.      xxx                                                           Director
7.      xxx                                                           Director
8.      xxx                                                           Director
9.      xxx                                                           Director
10. xxx                                                           Director
11.   xxx                                                          Director                                                         

The abovenamed directors/officers of XXX are the impleaded Defendants in this case.

10. Q – Do you know the plaintiff XXX SUBDIVISION MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (“XXX”, for brevity)?

A – Yes, Sir.

11.  Q  - Why do you know the plaintiff XXX?

A - We know the plaintiff because our Association (XXX) has an ongoing political and water service-related conflict with the plaintiff XXX for many years now.

12.  Q – Please describe the reason/s for the said ongoing political and water service-related conflict between your Association (XXX) and the plaintiff XXX.

A – In 2014 our Association (XXX), led by the then XXX president xxx (a co-Defendant), by virtue of XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 dated October 5, 2014, REVOKED the old XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx and Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx.

The said XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 dated October 5, 2014, in REVOKING the old XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx and Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx, expressly TERMINATED the old authority of the plaintiff XXX to operate the XXX Water System. It also in effect revoked the authority of plaintiff XXX to deal with the MANILA WATER CO., INC. (“MWCI”, for brevity) in behalf of XXX and the XXX Water System with respect to the supply of MWCI-provided water to the homeowners of the Subdivision.

The said XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 was RATIFIED by 496 XXX members (affected water consumers) of the Subdivision. The plaintiff XXX to this very day does not recognize our authority and leadership as the incumbent/holdover Board of XXX. The plaintiff XXX does not recognize the aforementioned Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 revoking its authority to operate the XXX Water System. The plaintiff XXX likewise does not recognize the aforementioned 2014 ratification by 496 XXX members (affected water consumers) of the said Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 revoking the authority of the plaintiff to operate the XXX Water System.

13.  Q – Who operates the XXX Water System now?

A – The XXX Water Committee (“AWC”, for brevity) under the XXX Board, which we lead as President and Vice President, operates the XXX Water System. The XXX Water System is owned by XXX as an association and by all XXX members in our subdivision. It is not owned by the plaintiff XXX.

But the problem is that the plaintiff XXX insists on operating the XXX Water System, as follows: 

(a)              It issues water bills to homeowners and collects their payments.

(b)              It misrepresents itself to the public that it is the entity duly authorized by XXX to operate the XXX Water System and to transact business with the MWCI.

(c)               It disconnects the water meters of dissenting homeowners who question its authority to operate the XXX Water System, who do not recognize its authority to collect payments for water bills from homeowners, and who prefer to pay their water bills to the XXX Water Committee.

14.  Q – What is the basis of the plaintiff in insisting to operate the XXX Water System?

A – The bases of the plaintiff XXX are the following:

(a)              It does not recognize our XXX leadership.

(b)              It insists that XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2014, which revoked its authority to operate the Water system per the old Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx and Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx, is invalid.

(c)               It does not recognize the 2014 ratification by the 496 XXX members of the aforecited Board Resolution No. xxx-2014.

Hence, the conflict between the incumbent XXX Board, under our leadership, on one hand, and the plaintiff XXX and its co-conspirators in the illegal “Xxx Board” of XXX, on the other, continues until now.

15.  Q – What are the effects of the said on-going conflict to the homeowners of your Subdivision?

A -  The effects of the said conflict are as follows:

(a)              It has resulted in a grave detriment to the general welfare and common good of the homeowners.
(b)              It has undermined the organizational unity of the homeowners.
(c)               It has sowed turmoil, confusion and potential violence among the XXX members supporting our Board (“Xxx Board”), on one hand, and the XXX members supporting the “Xxx Board” and the plaintiff XXX, on the other.
(d)              It has adversely affected the efficient, effective, and prompt delivery of water (at a fair price) and other basic socio-economic services to the homeowners.
16.  Q – What efforts, if any, were taken by your leadership to restore peace and unity and to serve the common good of the homeowners in your Subdivision?

A – In the latter part of 2015, our XXX Board filed a formal complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) invoking its mandate and jurisdiction to call and supervise the next regular election of directors/officers of XXX for the calendar year/term 2016-2017 to restore peace, order, unity, good governance, and accountability in the XXX as an association.

It was docketed as HLURB NCRHOA xxx and entitled “XXX XXX, Xxx Xxx, vs. XXX, xxx, xxx, xxx.
                    
17.  Q – What happened to the aforementioned HLURB case?

A - The HLURB Arbiter in charge of our complaint, xxx, has issued a Decision, dated 27 November 2015, granting our prayer for a HLURB-supervised election. 

18.  Q – What happened next?

A – The Xxx Board and its conspirators in the Board of the plaintiff ASPMC appealed the decision of the HLURB Arbiter xxx. But the HLURB National Capital Region Field Office (NCRFO) – Homeowners Association (HOA) has fixed the election date on xxx, 2016 despite the appeal of the Xxx Board.  The HLURB NCRFO HOA is now in the process of preparing for the holding of the said election.

19.  Q – Why do you want the Honorable Court to allow you to post a counter-injunction bond?

A – We respectfully pray to the Honorable Court to allow the Defendants in this case to post a counter-injunction bond to lift the preliminary earlier issued by the Court because if the existing preliminary injunction is not lifted the common good and the general welfare of the homeowners of the Subdivision will continue to suffer in the following ways:

(a)              The homeowners will continue to suffer from the high costs of water that the plaintiff XXX forcibly bills to and collects from the XXX members as compared to the regular cost of water billed by the MWCI, considering that the plaintiff XXX constitutes as an unnecessary and expensive additional layer or surplusage  distributor/intermediary on top of the MWCI, which is the duly authorized, official and primary water concessionaire/supplier mandated by the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to supply the water needs of the people of the Province of Xxx;

(b)              The dissenting homeowners, who do not recognize the authority of the plaintiff  XXX to operate the XXX Water System and who pay their water bills to the XXX Water Committee of the incumbent XXX Board (composed of the herein Defendants), are being harassed by the plaintiff by disconnecting their water meters, thus, depriving them of the basic human right to water, a dangerous situation that has resulted in potential violence and encounters between the affected homeowners and the agents of the plaintiff XXX;

(c)               The unauthorized act of the plaintiff XXX of operating the XXX Water System (which it does not own in the first place) has created divisiveness, confusion, turmoil, animosity, and demoralization among the homeowners of the Subdivision;  and, further, it has created similar confusion among the external public agencies and external private entities which transact business with the XXX as an association and the homeowners themselves (e.g, the MWCI, the Local Government Unit/s, and others), resulting in a grave failure in the delivery of basic socio-economic services to the homeowners;

20. Q – For the information of the Court, please describe, if you know, the history of the supply of water to the homeowners in your Subdivision.

A - Prior to the operation of the MWCI in the Province of Xxx in 1998, the water supply in our subdivision, with about 400 households at that time, was provided by a submersible (deep well) pump owned and operated by xxx & Family (“xxx”, for brevity).

In 2xxx, the old XXX Board, headed by President xxx, entered into a contract with the MWCI for the bulk supply of water to the Subdivision. The old 2xxx XXX Board passed Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx creating the XXX Water Committee (AWC) to manage the water operation of the XXX Water System. It appointed xxx as the Chairman of the said Committee. In its operation of the XXX Water System, the AWC used the official receipts of XXX as an Association, i.e., collection of connection fees and water payments from the XXX members-water consumers.

In the same year (2xxx), XXX Board, under President xxx and in collaboration with AWC Chairman xxx passed XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx transferring the authority of the XXX Water Committee to operate the XXX Water System to the plaintiff XXX without the prior consent and approval of the majority of the 400 XXX members

21.   Q – What happened next?

A - xxx and xxx ruled over the subdivision on a holdover status from 2xxx up to the term/calendar year 2005. In 2005 the xxx-xxx tandem recruited 127 XXX members to create the plaintiff XXX. Their intent was to institutionalize the role of the plaintiff xxx as the sole operator of the XXX Water System. In the same year (2005) the xxx-xxx tandem registered the plaintiff XXX with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) to perpetuate the monopoly of the plaintiff XXX over the XXX Water System.

In 2006 the outgoing xxx-xxx tandem managed to include as directors in the XXX Board the following directors of the plaintiff XXX, namely, xxx, xxx xxx, xxx, and xxxIt was the start of an immoral and conspirational INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES between the directors/officers of plaintiff XXX, on one hand, and the old XXX directors/officers then led by the xxx-xxx tandem, on the other.

22. Q  - What happened next re: the said interlocking directorates?

A - The xxx-xxx tandem strengthened the immoral and conspirational interlocking directorates when the said tandem and the said interlocking directorates manipulated the installation of xxx (a director/officer of plaintiff XXX) as the new XXX President. The said interlocking directors declared themselves as holdover XXX Officers for the term/calendar year 2xxx.  The said conspiring and interlocking directors perpetuated themselves in power by manipulating the subsequent XXX “selections” (not elections) in complete disrespect of the right of suffrage of the homeowners.

When the homeowners protested the immoral interlocking directorates, the following XXX-XXX interlocking directors namely, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, and xxx, were constrained to withdraw as XXX directors/officers.

23.  Q – What happened next?

A - Subsequently the plaintiff XXX’s legal adviser xxx (“Xxx”, for brevity; who was and who continues to be an interlocking director/officer of XXX and plaintiff XXX; and who is the real brain behind the instant case against the herein Defendants) took over and regrouped the said breakaway XXX inner core  (composed of xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, et. al., supra). The objective was to resurrect their political control over XXX while at the same interlocking as directors/officers of the plaintiff XXX. Xxx and her group controlled the 2008 XXX election, using the XXX rules and regulations by threatening dissenting homeowners of deprivation of water supply if they would not support her group of candidates. Atty. Xxx claims to be the President of the “Xxx Board” of XXX until the present time by declaring her Board as a holdover board from 2009 to the present time.  Meanwhile, Xxx sits in the XXX Board as an interlocking director/officer.

24. Q – What did the homeowners do about it?

A - Seeing the political intention of Xxx and her group to perpetuate themselves in power by pushing for a holdover status beyond the end of their tem on December 31, 2008, the majority of the XXX homeowners were constrained to advocate for democratic reforms in the election of the leaders of XXX to serve the common good. The homeowners initiated a petition to conduct election.  An election of XXX directors/officers was conducted by the homeowners on 5 April 2009. The 11 winning candidates took oath the next day, 6 April 2009. They were as follows:

NAME                                                                        POSITION
(a)              XXX XXX                                                    President
(b)              xxx                                                              Vice President
(c)               xxx                                                              Secretary
(d)              xxx                                                              Treasurer
(e)              xxx                                                              Auditor                      
(f)                xxx                                                              Director
(g)              XXX XXX                                                    Director & TLC Chairman
(h)              xxx                                                              Director
(i)                xxx                                                              Director
(j)                xxx                                                              Director
(k)              xxx                                                              Director

25.  Q – What did the abovementioned elected XXX directors/officers do next?

A - The result of the said April 5, 2009 election of XXX directors/officers for the term/calendar year 2009–2xxx was submitted by the abovenamed elected XXX directors/officers to the HLURB NCRFO HOA for its record. Upon assumption to office, the herein defendants (as the elected XXX Officers on April 5, 2009) sent a demand letter to the group of Atty. Xxx (an interlocking director/officer of XXX [“Xxx Board”] and XXX) to turn over the XXX records and the financial records of the XXX Water System. They did not comply.

26. Q – What happened next?

A - On 19 April 2009, Xxx (in conspiracy with the directors/officers of plaintiff XXX) conducted their own “selection” (not election) of XXX directors/officers inside the secluded or closed XXX office and they declared themselves “elected” XXX officers.  Three (3) more subsequent illegal annual “selections” were conducted by  Xxx in conspiracy with the XXX Board and in complete disregard of the right of suffrage of the homeowners.  Various election cases were filed by the herein Defendants against Xxx (and her interlocking XXX directors/officers) from 2009 to 2013.

27.  Q – What happened next?

A – In December 2014 the homeowners elected the herein Defendants to the Board of XXX. Upon assuming office we again served a demand letter to the group of Atty. Xxx to turn over to us the XXX records and the financial records of the XXX Water System.  Xxx and her group refused to comply.

28. Q – What happen next?

A – On March 3, 2015 the herein Defendants (who constitute the incumbent XXX Board) took over the XXX clubhouse and other XXX facilities of the subdivision to exercise our powers and functions as duly elected leaders of the association. To this day, we (herein Defendants) control and manage the XXX clubhouse, office, security posts, and other facilities/premises in the subdivision as the incumbent/holdover XXX Board.

29.  Q – Please describe, if you know, the history and status of the official relationship between your Board, on one hand, and the MWCI, on the other.

A -  In 2014 the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) ordered xxx to close his deep-well operation in the subdivision. xxx  informed us of such problem. We took immediate action by consulting the MWCI. The MWCI requested the HLURB to set a dialog among the stakeholders. The HLURB initiated a mediation conference. It was held on December 17, 2014. An agreement was reached during the mediation conference. Pursuant thereto, we, in our capacity as the incumbent/holdover XXX directors/officers were allowed to tap the elevated water tanks of xxx at the point beyond the sub-meter installed by MWCI.  The minutes of the said mediation conference held on December 17, 2014 was signed by HLURB Coordinator xxx. In the said minutes HLURB Coordinator xxx made a supplemental note, to wit;

“All parties appeared. They agreed that the new set of officers for 2014-2015 will be coordinating with the Manila Water for the XXX water consumption. The current BODs/Officers will request for Certification / Acknowledgment w/ HLURB for the new sets of Officers.

 Atty. xxx of the Legal Department of MWCI added a supplemental note to the said minutes, to wit:

“Acknowledge that the water reticulation system inside the subdivision is the sole responsibility of XXX and that MWCI will only be responsible for the bulk water service connection”  – x – x – x -


In compliance with the said supplemental note of the HLURB Coordinator xxx, we requested the HLURB to issue a certification proving our legitimacy as a Board. On August 28, 2014 a certification recognizing the legitimacy of our Board (“Xxx Board”) was issued by the HLURB NCRFO HOA.

Pursuant to the foregoing agreement, on March 3, 2015 the herein respondents, being the legitimate incumbent XXX directors and officers, implemented the agreed tapping of the water pipes (i.e., “water reticulation system inside the subdivision”). The herein defendants tapped the MWCI sub-main meter of a 2” GI pipe provision towards the three (3) elevated water tanks of Xxx in preparation for the closure of the Xxx operation. In the XXX-MWCI bulk water service agreement the MWCI mother meter and the main feeder water lines connecting the five (5) sub-meters were agreed to be the properties of MWCI. The sub-feeder water lines located after/beyond the said sub-meters, which were installed in 2xxx, were agreed to be the properties of XXX.

30. Q - What is the effect of the preliminary injunction earlier issued by the Court to XXX and to the homeowners?

A – The negative effects of the preliminary injunction earlier issued by the Court are as follows:

(a)              It has created a huge confusion among the XXX members/homeowners, the MWCI, the MWSS, the NWRB, the Local Government Units, and other stakeholders in re: the provision of water supply to the homeowners.

(b)              It has disregarded the 2014 XXX board resolution revoking the authority of the plaintiff XXX to operate the XXX Water System.
(c)               It has undermined our legitimacy as incumbent XXX Board.
(d)              It has encouraged the plaintiff to forcibly issue water bills and collect water payments from XXX members-water consumers.
(e)              It has emboldened the plaintiff XXX to harass the dissenting homeowners by disconnecting their water meters, thus, depriving them of their “basic human right to water.”
(f)                It has unjustly enriched the plaintiff XXX.
(g)              It has undermined the financial stability of XXX under our legitimate leadership.
(h)              We are forced to advanced our personal funds to maintain the needs of the association.
(i)                It has caused potential violence and physical encounters between the dissenting homeowners, on one hand, and the agents of the plaintiff XXX, on the other, who were ordered by the latter to forcibly disconnect the water meters of dissenting homeowners.
(j)                It has caused the XXX and the whole subdivision a very bad public image of disunity, turmoil, confusion, and disorganization.

31.  Q – You stated earlier that you and your Board have advanced your personal funds for the operations of XXX and for the common good of the homeowners. How much have you advanced in all to and for the benefit of XXX?

A – We have advanced P1, 314, 534.54, per our initial unaudited computation for the calendar year January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, as follows: x x xxx xxx.

                                                                                                            
32. Q – Is there anything you want to add to your foregoing statements?

A – We reserve the right to issue supplemental judicial affidavit/s and to submit supplemental documents in support of this judicial affidavit and all future supplemental affidavit/s, if any, in the interest of truth and justice.  

For the record, by way of ADOPTION CLAUSE and for convenience, we hereby adopt into this joint judicial affidavit of ours, by incorporation and reference, all the allegations and arguments contained in and all the supporting documents attached to all the past judicial and legal pleadings, comments/oppositions, motions and documents that we had previously filed with the Court to prove the lack of merit of the instant case filed by the plaintiff XXX against the herein Defendants (i.e., the incumbent/holdover XXX Board).


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our signatures this 14th day of March 2016 in Las Pinas City.



XXX XXX                                                     XXX XXX
Affiant/Defendant                                                    Affiant/Defendant   


                                                           
            SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Las Pinas City on March ___, 2016, affiants showing their respective competent proofs of identity, to wit:

XXX XXX:                             Driver’s License No. xxx;
XXX XXX:                             OSCA No. xxx;


                                                                                                            Notary Public

Doc. No. ___
Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2016.


V.                SWORN ATTESTATION OF THE LAWYER WHO CONDUCTED OR SUPERVISED THE EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS.

The undersigned ATTY. xxx., of legal age, married, and with law office address are Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices, Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave.,  Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740, under oath, deposes and states:

1.      He is the Legal Counsel for the Defendants in the above-entitled case;

2.      He  faithfully  recorded  or  caused  to  be  recorded  the questions  he  asked  and  the corresponding  answers  that  the witness gave;

3.      Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting him coached the witness regarding the latter's answers; and

4.      He conducted the examination of the witness at his law office located at Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices, Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740.

Las Pinas City, March 14, 2016.

                                                                                                            Atty. xxx.
                                                                                                             Affiant




            SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Las Pinas City on March _____, 2016, affiant showing his competent proof of identity, to wit: OSCA No. xxx.


                                                                                                Notary Public

Doc. No. ___
Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2016.


X x x.”