REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
LUNA, APAYAO
BRANCH ______

KERWIN BATI-EL SERRANO,

Plaintiff,

-versus-
Civil Case No. 1-2020
For: Specific Performance for
Recognition and Enforcement
of Compromise Agreement
and Damages

ADRIAN M. IBAY,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------------------x

REPLY
(Re: ANSWER)
With
MOTION TO SET CASE FOR PRE-TRIAL

Plaintiff, KERWIN BATI-EL SERRANO, by counsel and unto

this Honorable Court, by way of REPLY to defendant’s ANSWER,
most respectfully avers:

Reply

1. In Defendant’s Answer, he alleged that the Compromise

Agreement entered by the parties is null and void. The said
allegation is bereft of merit.

2. It is worthy to point out that the Compromise

Agreement, whereby the defendant agreed to shoulder all the costs
of the repair of the vehicle of the plaintiff, was freely and voluntarily
executed by the defendant in the presence of the police officers.
Thus, defendant cannot claim that he was misled into executing the
Compromise Agreement.

1|Page
 3. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the
parties make reciprocal concessions in order to resolve their
differences and thus avoid or put an end to a lawsuit. (Felipe
Magbanua, et al., v. Rizalino Uy, G.R. No. 161003, 06 May 2005)

4. Well entrenched is the rule that obligation arising from

contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and
should be complied with in good faith (Article 1159, New Civil
Code). The law makes it available to the injured party damages in
either case if the obligor does not comply with what is incumbent,
alternative remedies such as the power to rescind or enforce
fulfillment with upon him. (Sps. Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, 87
SCRA 408)

5. Thus, the failure of the defendant to comply with his

obligation under the compromise agreement [which is the contract
between the herein parties] gives rise to a cause of action for specific
performance against him.

6. Furthermore, the claim of the defendant that he was

made to believe that the driver of his truck was at fault for the
collision, when in fact, was not, is preposterous, if not unbelievable.
It is worthy to emphasize that the vehicular collision [that resulted
to damage to the vehicle of the plaintiff] was investigated by the
police officers, and based on the investigation, it was the driver of
the truck [owned by defendant] who was at fault for the collision.

7. The Police Report [on the vehicular collision] was made

by the investigating police officers in the regular performance of
their public duties. Hence, the Police Report enjoys the
presumption of regularity and due execution. Thus, the findings
that the driver of the truck [owned by defendant] was at fault are
valid and binding.

8. Furthermore, the defendant is liable to pay any damages

caused by the driver of defendant’s truck being the employer of the
driver. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
“employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees
within their assigned tasks. Once negligence on the part of the
employee is established, a presumption instantly arises that the
employer was remiss in the selection and/ or supervision of the
negligent employee.”

2|Page
 9. In the instant case, the negligence of the employee of
the defendant was established by the investigation of the police
officers, and which was reduced into a Police Report. As such,
defendant is liable for the negligence of his driver.

10. It is based on the investigation of the police officers that

defendant executed the compromise agreement considering that
based on the Police Report, there was a clear showing that the
driver of the truck was negligent.

11. Defendant reviewed the police report and had the

occasion to verify from the police officers on what transpired during
the investigation of the collision. Thus, it cannot be said that the
plaintiff induced the defendant to enter into a compromise
agreement, as the defendant entered into a compromise agreement
because of the result of the investigation of the police officers.
Thus, the same is valid in binding.

12. The fact that the defendant sold the truck would not
relieve him of LIABILITY. Instead, the sale of the truck after the
collision would further establish bad faith on his part. The sale was,
clearly, made to evade liability under the Compromise Agreement.

13. Plaintiff specifically denies the claim of the defendant

for damages, for being speculative and without legal basis.
Defendant is not seeking relief for damages with clean hands. Basic
is the rule that “he who comes to court must come with clean
hands.”

14. Parties who do not come to court with clean hands

cannot be allowed to profit from their own wrongdoing. The action
(or inaction) of the party seeking equity must be "free from fault,
and he must have done nothing to lull his adversary into repose,
thereby obstructing and preventing vigilance on the part of the
latter." (DPWH v. Ronaldo E. Quiwa, G.R. No. 183444, February 8,
2012).

Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial

15. The defendant have already filed his Answer in the

instant complaint

3|Page
 16. Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:

“When conducted – After the last pleading has

been filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to
promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-
trial.”

17. Since the issues have already been joined and in the
interest of expedient justice, an Order setting the case for Pre-Trial
conference and trial on the merits is fervently requested.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant

case be set for pre-trial considering that the defenses of the
defendant need to be threshed out in a full blown trial which will
consequently and ultimately determine the merits of the case.

It is further prayed that defendant’s counter-claim be

DISMISSED for UTTER LACK OF MERIT.

OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable under the

circumstances, are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Luna, Apayao. 23 June 2020

BAYAUA & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Plaintiff
3rd Floor Gonzalez Building, 1888 Orense St.,
Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City
Tel Nos. (02) 750-4439; (02)881-7629
Email: bayaualawoffice@gmail.com

by:

ATTY. JORICO FAVOR BAYAUA

IBP Life Member Roll No. 09572/01-13-11
PTR No. 8116291 / 01-03-2020 / Makati City
Roll No. 47842

4|Page
 MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021401
April 11, 2019

Copy Furnished:

REYES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Defendant
Zamora Street, corner Del Pilar Avenue
Rosario, Santiago City

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Reply (Re: Answer) with Motion to Set Case for
Pre-Trial was furnished the adverse parties by registered main due
to distance involved and lack of manpower to effect personal
service.

JORICO FAVOR BAYAUA

5|Page