Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
PROVINCE OF LAGUNA
Branch ______

SPOUSES MICHAEL AND ANA

DAYDAY,
Plaintiffs,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. _____________

Breach of Contract and Damages

HERMAN AQUINO,
Defendant.
x-------------------------x

COMPLAINT

“The desire for what is right not the letter of the law is what
keep justice alive”

PLAINTIFFS SPOUSES MICHAEL AND ANA DAYDAY (herein

referred to as “SPS. DAYDAY”), through the undersigned counsel, most
respectfully alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs are of legal ages, married to each other and with

residence or postal address at Blk 12 Lot 14 Bennet Street, Britanny
Augusta Subdivision, City of Santa Rosa, Laguna, where it may be
served with summons and processes of this Most Honorable Court;

2. Defendant, Architect Herman F. Aquino, is also of legal age,

married, General Manager of MAH Construction, a corporation duly
organized and existing under Philippine laws, with principal
business/office address at Designers Builders Enterprises, Block 3 Lot
30, Phase 1C Annex, San Lorenzo Subdivision, City of Santa Rosa,
Laguna, where it may be served with summons and other processes of
this Most Honorable Court.

3. On December 22, 1997, Eviota began negotiating with the Bank on

his possible employment with the latter. Taken up during these
negotiations were not only his compensation and benefit package, but
also the nature and demands of his prospective position. The Bank
made sure that Eviota was fully aware of all the terms and conditions of
his possible job with the Bank.

4. On January 26, 1998, Eviota indicated his conformity with the

Bank’s Offer of Employment by signing a written copy of such offer dated
January 22, 1998 (the “Employment Contract”). A copy of the
Employment Contract between Eviota and the Bank is hereto attached
as Annex “A.”

5. Acting on the Employment Contract and on Eviota’s uninhibited

display of interest in assuming his position, the Bank promptly proceeded
to carry out the terms of the Employment Contract as well as to facilitate
his integration into the workforce. Among others, the Bank: (a)
renovated and refurbished the room which was to serve as Eviota’s
 office; (b) purchased a 1998 Honda CR-V (Motor No. PEWED7P101101;
Chassis No. PADRD 1830WV00108) for Eviota’s use; (c) purchased a
desktop IBM computer for Eviota’s use; (d) arranged the takeout of
Eviota’s loans with Eviota’s former employer; (e) released Eviota’s
signing bonus in the net amount of P300,000.00; (f) booked Eviota’s
participation in a Singapore conference on Y2K project scheduled on
March 10 and 11, 1998; and (g) introduced Eviota to the local and
regional staff and officers of the Bank via personal introductions and
electronic mail.

6. The various expenses incurred by the Bank in carrying out the

above acts are itemized below, as follows:

a. Signing Bonus P 300,000.00

b. 1 Honda CR-V 800,000.00

c. IBM Desktop Computer 89,995.00

d. Office Reconfiguration 29,815.00

e. 2-Drawer Lateral File

Cabinet 13,200.00

f. 1 Officer’s Chair 31,539.00

g. 1 Guest Chair 2,200.00

h. 1 Hanging Shelf 2,012.00

i. i. Staff Loan Processing

Title Verification 375.00

Cost of Appraisal –
 Housing Loan 3,500.00

TOTAL P1,272,636.00

An itemized schedule of the above expenses incurred by the Bank is

hereto attached as Annex “B.”

7. On February 25, 1998, Eviota assumed his position as

Compensation and Benefits Manager with the Bank and began to
discharge his duties. At one Human Resources (“HR”) Committee
meeting held on March 3, 1998, Eviota energetically presented to senior
management his projects for the year, thus raising the latter’s
expectations. The same day, Eviota instructed the Bank’s HR
Administrator to book him a flight for Singapore, where he was scheduled
to participate in a Y2K project on March 10 and 11, 1998. Confident of
Eviota’s professed commitment to the Bank, the latter made the
aforementioned airline booking for him. In addition, the Bank allowed
Eviota access to certain sensitive and confidential information and
documents concerning the Bank’s operations.

8. After leading the Bank to believe that he had come to stay, Eviota
suddenly resigned his employment with immediate effect to re-join his
previous employer. His resignation, which did not comply with the 30-
day prior notice rule under the law and under the Employment Contract,
was so unexpected that it disrupted plans already in the pipeline (e.g.,
the development of a salary/matrix grid and salary structure, and the
processing of merit promotion recommendations), aborted meetings
previously scheduled among Bank officers, and forced the Bank to hire
the services of a third party to perform the job he was hired to do. For
the services of this third party, the Bank had to pay a total of
P208,807.50. A copy of a receipt for the above expenses is hereto
attached as Annex “C” (See also, Annex “B”).

9. Aside from causing no small degree of chaos within the Bank by

reason of his sudden resignation, Eviota made off with a computer
diskette and other papers and documents containing confidential
information on employee compensation and other Bank matters, such as
the salary schedule of all Corporate and Institutional Banking officers and
photocopies of schedules of benefits provided expatriates being
employed by the Bank.

10. With the benefit of hindsight, the Bank realizes that it was
simply used by Eviota as a mere leverage for his selfish efforts at
negotiating better terms of employment with his previous employer.
Worse, there is evidence to show that in his attempts to justify his hasty
departure from the Bank and conceal the real reason for his move,
Eviota has resorted to falsehoods derogatory to the reputation of the
Bank. In particular, he has been maliciously purveying the canard that
he had hurriedly left the Bank because it had failed to provide him
support. His untruthful remarks have falsely depicted the Bank as a
contract violator and an undesirable employer, thus damaging the Bank’s
reputation and business standing in the highly competitive banking
community, and undermining its ability to recruit and retain the best
personnel in the labor market.

11. On March 16, 1998, the Bank made a written demand on

Eviota to return the aforementioned computer diskette and other
confidential documents and papers, reimburse the Bank for the various
expenses incurred on his account as a result of his resignation (with legal
interest), and pay damages in the amount of at least P500,000.00 for the
inconvenience and work/program disruptions suffered by the Bank.

A copy of the Bank’s demand letter dated March 16, 1998 is hereto
attached as Annex “D.”

12. In partial compliance with said demand, Eviota made

arrangements with his previous employer to reimburse the Bank for the
expenses incurred in connection with the Bank’s purchase of the Honda
CR-V for his use. The Bank informed Eviota that in addition to the
Honda CR-V’s purchase price of P848,000.00 (of which Eviota initially
shouldered P48,000.00), incidental costs in the form of Processing Fees
(P1,000.00), FPD/MCAR/98-155684 (P1,232.53) and Fund Transfer
Price (P18,646.84) were incurred, bringing the total cost of the Honda
CR-V to P868,881.38. On April 29, 1998, the Bank received two
manager’s checks in the aggregate amount of P868,881.38, representing
costs incurred in connection with the purchase of the Honda CR-V,
inclusive of processing fees and other incidental costs. Previously,
Eviota had returned his P300,000.00 signing bonus, less the P48,000.00
he had advanced for the Honda CR-V’s purchase price.

13. Eviota never complied with the Bank’s demand that he

reimburse the latter for the other expenses incurred on his account,
amounting to P360,562.12 (see, Annex “B”). 1[3]

The respondent bank alleged, by way of its causes of action against

the petitioner, the following:

First Cause of Action

1 [3] Rollo, pp. 32-36.

 14. Eviota’s actions constitute a clear violation of Articles 19, 20
and 21 of Republic Act No. 386, as amended (the “Civil Code”).
Assuming arguendo that Eviota had the right to terminate his
employment with the Bank for no reason, the manner in and
circumstances under which he exercised the same are clearly abusive
and contrary to the rules governing human relations.

14.1. By his actions and representations, Eviota had induced the

Bank to believe that he was committed to fulfilling his obligations under
the Employment Contract. As a result, the Bank incurred expenses in
carrying out its part of the contract (see Annexes “B” and “C”). Less
reimbursements received from Eviota, the Bank is entitled to actual
damages of P360,562.12. (See, Annex “C”).

Second Cause of Action

15. Under Article 285 (a) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as

amended (the Labor Code), an employee may terminate without just
cause the employer-employee relationship by serving written notice on
the employer at least one (1) month in advance. In addition, Section 13
of the Employment Contract specifically provides that: “Your [i.e.,
Eviota’s] employment may be terminated by either party giving notice of
at least one month.” (Annex “A,” p. 5.)

15.1. Eviota’s failure to comply with the above requirement threw a

monkey wrench into the Bank’s operations – Eviota’s sudden resignation
aborted meetings previously scheduled among Bank officers and
disrupted plans for a salary/merit review program and development of a
salary structure and merit grid already in the pipeline.
 Hence, Eviota is liable to the Bank for damages in the amount of at
least P100,000.00.

Third Cause of Action

16. Eviota’s false and derogatory statements that the Bank had
failed to deliver what it had purportedly promised have besmirched the
Bank’s reputation and depicted it as a contract violator and one which
does not treat its employees properly. These derogatory statements
have injured the Bank’s business standing in the banking community,
and have undermined the Bank’s ability to recruit and retain the best
personnel. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to moral damages of at least
P2,000,000.00.

17. By way of example or correction for the public good, and to

deter other parties from committing similar acts in the future, defendant
should be held liable for exemplary damages of at least P1,000,000.00

18. Eviota’s actions have compelled plaintiff to obtain the

services of undersigned counsel for a fee, in order to protect its interests.
Hence, plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees of at least P200,000.00. 2[4]

The respondent bank prayed, that after due proceedings, judgment

be rendered in its favor as follows:

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered

ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff:

1. As actual damages, the amount of P360,562.12, representing

expenses referred to in items c to i of par. 6 and the cost of the third-
party services mentioned in par. 8;

2 [4] Id. at 36-37.

 2. For violating the 30-day notice requirement under the Labor Code
and order (sic) the Employment Contract, damages in the amount of at
least P100,000.00;

3. As moral damages, the amount of P2,000,000.00;

4. As exemplary damages, the amount of P1,000,000.00;

5. As attorney’s fees, the amount of P200,000.00; and

6. Costs of the suit.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. 3[5]

JURISDICTION

3. Pursuant to Paragraph 38 of the Construction Agreement, dated

September 11, 2017, the herein Plaintiff JETTI Petroleum, Inc. most
respectfully submits to this Most Honorable Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission the herein case which is within its original and
exclusive jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Section 4,
Executive Order No. 1008, effective February 04, 1985 and Section 2.1,
Rule 2, Rules of Procedure of the Commission which stated, to wit:

Section 4, Executive Order No. 1008, effective February 04,

1985:
“Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The CIAC shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected
with, contracts entered into by parties involved in construction
in the Philippines, whether the dispute arises before or after
the completion of the contract, or after the abandonment or

3 [5] Id. at 37-38.

 breach thereof. These disputes may involve government or
private contracts. For the Board to acquire jurisdiction, the
parties to a dispute must agree to submit the same to
voluntary arbitration.

“The jurisdiction of the CIAC may include but is not

limited to violation of specifications for materials and
workmanship; violation of the terms of agreement;
interpretation and/or application of contractual time and
delays; maintenance and defects; payment, default of
employer or contractor and changes in contract cost.

“Excluded from the coverage of this law are disputes

arising from employer-employee relationships which shall
continue to be covered by the Labor Code of the Philippines.

Section 2.1, Rule 2, Rules of Procedure of the Commission:

“RULE 2 - JURISDICTION

“SECTION 2.1 Jurisdiction – The CIAC shall have original

and exclusive jurisdiction over construction disputes, which
arose from, or is connected with contracts entered into by
parties involved in construction in the Philippines whether the
dispute arose before or after the completion of the contract, or
after the abandonment or breach thereof. These disputes may
involve government or private contracts.

“2.1.1 The jurisdiction of the CIAC may

include but is not limited to violation of
specifications for materials and workmanship;
violation of the terms of agreement;
interpretation and/or application of contractual
provisions; amount of damages and penalties;
commencement time and delays; maintenance
and defects; payment default of employer or
contractor and changes in contract cost.

CAUSE OF ACTION

4. Plaintiff JETTI herein desired to engage the services of LD

Perez Construction and Enterprises Corporation, Inc. as a Construction
Contractor to provide materials, labor equipments, tools, consumables,
facilities and supervision for the construction of two (2) JETTI fuel
stations located at San Isidro and San Roque, Talisay City, Cebu;

5. On September 11, 2017, legal representatives of Plaintiff Jetti

Petroleum, Inc. and defendant LD Perez Construction and Enterprises
Corporation entered into a written Construction Agreement at JETTI
Main Office, Cavite for the construction of subject two (2) fuel station
located at San Isidro and San Roque, Talisay City, Cebu. Pursuant
thereto, Plaintiff Jetti Petroleum, Inc. agreed to pay the sum of Five
Million Three Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred Forty
Two and 87/100 Pesos ( Php5,357,142.87), exclusive of Twelve (12)
Percent Value Added Tax (VAT) and subject to Two (2) Percent
Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT) to defendants LD Perez
Construction and Enterprises Corporation and Leodivino D. Perez for the
aforesaid projects.

A copy of the Construction Agreement, dated September 11, 2017

is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

6. On October 09, 2017, Plaintiff Jetti Petroleum, Inc. made a

down payment of 15% of the total contract price and on January 08,
2018, another 15% payment was made; the balance to be due upon
completion of the house. Herein defendants LD Perez Construction and
Enterprises Corporation and Leodivino D, Perez agreed to build the two
(2) fuel stations in accordance of plaintiff’s design and instructions for the
aforesaid price and to complete the work on or before February 06,
2018;
 7. That from September 12 to October 09, 2017, defendants LD
Perez Construction and Enterprises Corporation and Leodivino D. Perez
have not done anything nor made any action on the projects like the
clearing of the sites, layout on the elevation of the building, proper
fencing of the sites and the installations of electric post and water on the
sites. This inaction or omissions made by the herein defendants
constitutes negligence on their part as these can be done even during
the processing of building permits and other requirements necessary for
the said construction projects;

8. It was only on November 06, 2017 that defendants LD Perez

Construction and Enterprises Corporation and Leodivino D. Perez
mobilized their men and pieces of equipment on the sites. However,
there was no available water and electricity on the said sites.

9. On November 20, 2017, defendant LD Perez Construction and

Enterprises Corporation and proprietor Leodivino D. Perez pulled out
their men and pieces of equipment on the sites without any excusable
reason/s in doing so;

10. On December 06, 2017, said defendant corporation, through its

owner and proprietor Leodivino D. Perez, remobilized their men and
pieces of equipment on the site which still has no available water and
electricity at that time.
 11. It can be gleaned also that under the covenant that herein
defendants duly entered and signed with the said plaintiff, the following
were their legal obligations, to wit:

a) The Contractor would provide materials, labor,

equipments, tools, consumables, facilities and supervision
for the construction of the said two (2) Jetti fuel stations.
(First Whereas Clause, Construction Agreement,
dated September 11, 2017).

b) The Contractor has represented that it has the necessary

expertise, experience, skill, competence and know-how to
undertake the construction of the said Projects. (Second
Whereas Clause, Construction Agreement, dated
September 11, 2017).

c) The Contractor shall provide and pay for all labor, tools,
equipments and supervision necessary for the execution
and completion of the Project. (Paragraph 3,
Construction Agreement, dated September 11, 2017).

d) The Contractor shall to its account give all necessary

notices to and shall coordinate with the proper authorities
with respect to the works to be done hereunder and shall
comply with the building and other regulations of such
authorities. (Paragraph 9, Construction Agreement,
dated September 11, 2017).

e) All permits and fees shall be advanced by the Contractor,

including but not limited to Department of Natural
 Resources and Environmental Compliance Certificate
fees. (Paragraph 10, Construction Agreement, dated
September 11, 2017)

f) The Contractor (LD Perez Construction and Enterprises

Corporation, through owner Leodivino D. Perez) shall
commence execution of the Project upon the issuance of
the building permit and shall finish and complete the
project within (90) calendar days, unless extended in
writing upon agreement of the OWNER (JETTI Petoleum,
Inc.) and Contractor. (Paragraph 12, Construction
Agreement, dated September 11, 2017).

g) The Contractor warrants and guarantees that: 1) all

materials used in the Projects are free from defects and
strictly in accordance with the Specifications of the Project;
2) all civil works and installation of materials, facilities, and
equipment shall be carried out in a workmanlike manner
and in conformity with sound and current engineering
practices; 3) any defect from the Contractor’s non-
compliance with its obligations shall be made good without
any cost or expenses on the part of the owner; 4) all
materials and works made for the Project shall have a
warranty period of one (1) year from the completion or
termination of this Agreements; and, 5) in cases of force
majeure occurring during the period of construction in
which the Project suffered damage, the Contractor shall
allow the Owner or its representative to inspect the Project
 for defects attributable to the Contractor and hold it liable
for such damage. Any damage to property and injury to
persons, including those belonging to third parties, shall
be borne by the Contractor, notwithstanding Sections 20
and 23 of the Agreement (Paragraph 13, Construction
Agreement, dated September 11, 2017).

h) The Contractor shall promptly give notice in writing to the

Owner with three (3) calendar days the occurrence of any
event constituting force majeure. (Paragraph 23,
Construction Agreement, dated September 11, 2017).

i) The Contractor binds itself to protect and make immune

the Owner from any suit or liability, criminal or civil,
resulting from claims of any nature, whether for death,
injuries or damages that may be suffered by the
Contractor’s workers and/or third parties and/or to their
property arising from or in connection with the
performance of work and this Contract. (Paragraph 30,
Construction Agreement, dated September 11, 2017).

j) The Contractor shall comply with the laws, ordinances and

regulations of both the national and local governments
applicable to or binding upon the Parties here to the works
covered by this Agreement of the person engaged in the
performance and accomplishment of works covered by
this Agreement and shall be totally responsible for all
damages either to the Owner, to private individuals, or the
government for the non-observance of such laws,
 ordinances or regulations. (Paragraph 31, Construction
Agreement, dated September 11, 2017).

k) Such other analogous matters and stipulations as may be

provided for under the Construction Agreement, dated
September 11, 2017.

12. Defendants failed to resume the construction of the two (2)

fuel stations in San Roque and San Isidro, Talisay City, Cebu
as they had promised. Despite numerous calls, sending of emails and
even personal visits made by the representatives of the plaintiff Jetti
Petroleum, Inc. to remind them of the contract, defendants did not
respond and wantonly and unjustly abandoned the unfinished projects in
Talisay City, Cebu and further, even maliciously sabotaged, dismantled
and/or damaged certain portions of the construction areas of the two (2)
aforesaid fuel station.

13. On January 24, 2018, an email was sent by JETTI’s Senior

Project Engineer Randy Magat requiring the defendants to comply with
the project completion within seven (7) days or on or before January 31,
2018 when the agreed termination date was February 06, 2018.

14. Considering that defendants utterly failed to comply with the

tenor of the Construction Agreement and refused to do so despite
repeated demands, both oral and written, made by the plaintiff for its
compliance and completion, JETTI;s Project Engineer Julis Bayaban
gave a Verbal Notice for Stoppage of Work on February 04, 2018.
 15. On February 07, 2018, defendants unlawfully and unjustly
abandoned the construction work of the two (2) JETTI fuel stations
located at San Isidro and San Roque, Talisay City, Cebu.

16. On February 09, 2018, a demand letter was sent to Mr.

Leodivino informing him of his company’s refusal to perform its
contractual obligation, the unlawful abandonment of the construction
works on the two (2) Cebu fuel stations, their violation of the Contruction
Agreement entered into on September 11, 2017 and for them to return
within five (5) days from receipt the amount of P4,419,642.86
representing the initial payments made by JETTI. However, all efforts
proved futile as defendants disregarded and continued to disregard the
said demand and refused payment.

17. By reason of the facts and circumstances stated above,

defendants have breached the Construction Agreement, dated
September 11, 2017;

18. Due to the unjust and unlawful desertion of the projects by LD

Construction and Enterprise Corporation, Inc. and its owner
Leodivino G. Perez, Plaintiff JETTI Petroleum, Inc. has incurred
besmirched and debased reputation, resulting to social humiliation as a
result of the bad faith and unlawful act of the defendants in completely
abandoning the two (2) fuel stations in Talisay City, Cebu without
justifiable reasons. It is entitled to moral damages in the amount of Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00). In the case of Herman C.
Crystal et al. vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, Inc., G.R. No.
172428, November 28, 2008 reiterating the age-old case of Mambulao
Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al., 130 Phil. 366 (1968), the Supreme Court
held that:
“x x x Obviously, an artificial person like herein appellant
corporation cannot experience physical sufferings, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock or social
humiliation which are basis of moral damages. A corporation may
have good reputation which, if besmirched may also be a
ground for the award of moral damages.x x x (Emphasis
supplied)

19. The awards of exemplary damages is proper. Exemplary

damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public
good, when the party to a contract acts in a wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner, while attorney’s fees are allowed when
exemplary damages are awarded and when the party to a suit is
compelled to incur expenses to protect his interest. (Spouses Paguyo v.
Astorga, G.R. No. 13098, 16 September 2005, 470 SCRA 33).The
plaintiff Jetti Petroleum, Inc. instituted the instant complaint against
defendants LD Perez Construction and Enterprises Corporation, Inc. and
Mr. Leodivino D. Perez notwithstanding the fact that they were the ones
who failed to perform their contractual obligations. For these reasons,
plaintiff Jetti Petroleum, Inc is entitled to the award of exemplary
damages in the amounts of P100,000.00.

20. Unable to operate the projects due to the illegal abandonment

fault and inexcusable negligence of the herein defendants, plaintiff had to
secure the services of another construction company with an excess cost
in the sum of P4,000,000.00 just to finish the construction of the said fuel
stations;
 21. The Construction Agreement, dated September 11, 2017
includes stipulations for liquidated damages for failure to complete
work, wherein the Contractor is to pay the Owner liquidated damages
equivalent to the One-Percent of Ten Percent (1% of 10%) of the
Contract Price per calendar day of delay until completion, delivery and
acceptance of the said Works by the OWNER to a maximum amount
not to exceed 10% of the total contract amount as stated in Paragraph
20 of the Construction Agreement, dated September 11, 2017;

22. Defendants’ wanton abandonment and refusal to complete the

two (2) construction projects has caused harm to JETTI’s clients, which
should be curtailed and prevented in the future;

23. Consequently, Plaintiff JETTI Petroleum, Inc. was constrained

to engage the services of counsel to whom it obligated itself to pay as
Attorney's Fees the amount equivalent to TWENTY FIVE PERCENT
(25%) of the total amount to be adjudged in favor of plaintiff, and the
costs of this suit.
Consequently, plaintiff Jetti Petroleum, Inc was forced to litigate
and defend its interest.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, it

is respectfully prayed of this Most Honorable Commission, after hearing
on the merits, that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendants and consequently, finding the latter liable to pay
jointly and severally the following:
 a. The return of the amount of Four Million Four Hundred
Nineteen Thousand, Six Hundred Forty Two Pesos and Eighty Six
Cents (Php4,419,642.86) as actual damages representing the initial
payments made by plaintiff Jetti Petroleum, Inc. to the herein defendants
for the uncompleted, abandoned and damaged fuel station;
b. The amount of Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) as the
amount to be reimbursed by the defendants to the plaintiff as a result of
the completion of the Projects by other construction companies.

c. The sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00)

for moral damages;
d. The amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php100,000.00) as exemplary damages;
e. The amount equivalent to TWENTY FIVE PERCENT (25%) of
the total amount stated in the contract or Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php200,000.00), whichever may be adjudged by this Most Honorable
Commission in favor of the herein plaintiff; and,
f. Defendants be ordered to pay the costs of suit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of April, 2018, done in the

City of Baguio, Philippines.

JOHN IGGY G. PALLERA

Counsel for Complainant JETTI Petroleum, Inc.
Attorney’s Roll Number: 50856
IBP Lifetime Number: 08539
 PTR Number: 2972116/15 January 2013/Imus,
Cavite
MCLE Exemption Number: III-001347
2nd floor, Unit E,
ELMIA Development, Inc. Bldg.,
San Gregorio Street, Indang, Cavite
Telephone Number: (0920)-9529682
Email address: attypallera@gmail.com
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES }
DONE: IN THE CITY OF MAKATI } S.S.
X ========================= X

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, _________________________, after having been duly sworn to in

accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the one who instituted this Complaint before this Most Honorable
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, Makati City;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Complaint for Breach of Construction Contract before this Most Honorable
Commission;

3. That I have read the contents thereof and that the allegations therein
are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and or based on true and
authentic records and documents;

4. That I hereby certify that I have not filed the same or similar action or
proceeding against the herein Defendants before any court or tribunal in the
Philippines or abroad. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding against
the herein Defendants has been filed or is pending before any other court or
tribunal, I shall notify the court within five (5) days from such notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this verification this

_____ day of April, 2018.

RANDY MAGAT
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in Makati, this ___ day of April
2018 by RANDY MAGAT, who has satisfactorily proven his identity to me through
his (competent identification evidence ) valid until __________________, that he is
the same person who personally signed the foregoing Verification and Certification
before me and acknowledged that he executed the same voluntarily and of his own
free will.

Doc. No. ___;

Page No.___;
Book No. __;
Series of 2018.