“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 xxx. It 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.”
