REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
QUEZON CITY
Branch 93

HECTOR D. DE CASTRO,
Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO.

Q-16-11824-CV
For: Nullity of transfer of stocks,
Cancellation of stock certificates
and cancellation of entries in Stock
and transfer books and General
Information sheets

ACME STEEL MFG. COMPANY , INC.

ET. AL,
Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

COMMENT/ OBJECTION

(TO PLAINTIFF’S FORMAL OFFER )

COMES NOW, the DEFENDANTS ACME STEEL

MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. (“ACME STEEL”), ACME GAS
CORPORATION (“ACME GAS”), VICTOR D. DE
CASTRO(“VICTOR”), AND CHRISTOPHER EMMANUEL R. DE
CASTRO (“CHRISTOPHER”) by counsel and to this Honorable
Court, respectfully submit its comments and objections to plaintiff’s
formal offer of evidence:

EXHIBIT DOCUMENT COMMENT/OBJECTION

“A” Articles of Incorporation of Defendants offer no
ACME Steel objection to the exhibit
Manufacturing Co., Inc
“A-1” Amended Articles of Same as above
Incorporation of ACME
Steel Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.
“B” 2007 General Information Same as above
sheet of ACME Steel
Manufacturing Co. Inc
“C” 2008 General Information Same as above
Sheet of ACME Steel
Manufacturing Co., Inc.
1
“E” and submarkings Certificate of Stock Defendants object to it’s
admissibility and the
purposes for which it is
offered for not being the
original Certificates of Stock
it purports to be.

According to Section 3 of
Rule 130 of the revised rules
on Evidence

“Original document must be

produced; exceptions. — When
the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible
other than the original
document itself, except in
the following cases:

(a) When the original

has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court,
without bad faith on
the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original

is in the custody or
under the control of
the party against
whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter
fails to produce it
after reasonable
notice;

(c) When the original

consists of numerous
accounts or other
documents which
cannot be examined
in court without great
loss of time and the
fact sought to be
established from them
is only the general
result of the whole;
and

(d) When the original

is a public record in
the custody of a

2
 public officer or is
recorded in a public
office. (2a)

According to the testimony

of the Plaintiff, he was a
corporate officer of ACME
Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. from the
1980’s up until he was
removed in 2016.
Furthermore, he further
testified that he learned of
the existence of the
certificates of stock between
2008-2009 and that it came
from then Corporate
Secretary of the Corporation.
Given the length of time he
was holding authority
within the corporation, it is
untenable that he has no
copy whatsoever of the said
certificates of stock nor
ready access to them for the
whole duration he held
authority within the
corporation. Furthermore,
his allegation as to the
veracity of the signatures
appearing on the said
documents is hearsay and
self serving.

It is apparent that herein

plaintiff did not offer into
evidence the said certificates
of stock as it would
contradict his allegation that
the same certificates were
never delivered to the
intended owners. In light of
contradictory testimonies
from the offeror including
the fact that the alleged
certificates of stock
supposedly was not issued
to any of their supposed
owners yet the same was
available for him to
photocopy and further lack
of any basis to support his
claims, none of the
exceptions applies to the

3
 exhibit being offered.

“F” Original Articles of Defendants offer no

Incorporation of ACME objection to the exhibit
Gas Corporation
“F-1” Ammended Articles of Same as Above
Incorporation of ACME
Gas Corporation
“G” 2007 GIS of ACME Gas Same as Above
Corporation
“H” 2008 GIS of ACME Gas Same as Above
Corporation
“J” and submarkings Certificates of stock Defendants object to it’s
admissibility and the
purposes for which it is
offered for not being the
original Certificates of Stock
it purports to be.

According to Section 3 of
Rule 130 of the revised rules
on Evidence

“Original document must be

produced; exceptions. — When
the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible
other than the original
document itself, except in
the following cases:

(a) When the original

has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court,
without bad faith on
the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original

is in the custody or
under the control of
the party against
whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter
fails to produce it
after reasonable
notice;

(c) When the original

consists of numerous
accounts or other
documents which

4
 cannot be examined
in court without great
loss of time and the
fact sought to be
established from them
is only the general
result of the whole;
and

(d) When the original

is a public record in
the custody of a
public officer or is
recorded in a public
office. (2a)

According to the testimony

of the Plaintiff, he was a
corporate officer of ACME
GAS Corporation from the
1980’s up until he was
removed in 2016.
Furthermore, he further
testified that he learned of
the existence of the
certificates of stock between
2008-2009 and that it came
from then Corporate
Secretary of the Corporation.
Given the length of time he
was holding authority
within the corporation, it is
untenable that he has no
copy whatsoever of the said
certificates of stock nor
ready access to them for the
whole duration he held
authority within the
corporation. Furthermore,
his allegation as to the
veracity of the signatures
appearing on the said
documents is hearsay and
self serving.

It is apparent that herein

plaintiff did not offer into
evidence the said certificates
of stock as it would
contradict his allegation that
the same certificates were
never delivered to the
intended owners. In light of

5
 contradictory testimonies
from the offeror including
the fact that the alleged
certificates of stock
supposedly was not issued
to any of their supposed
owners yet the same was
available for him to
photocopy and further lack
of any basis to support his
claims, none of the
exceptions applies to the
exhibit being offered.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned counsel

respectfully pray of this Honorable Court to take cognizance of the
above comments and objections herein set forth and to exclude the
object evidence above objected to.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Caloocan City for Quezon City, 09 November 2020

ATTY. MICHAEL MITO-ON J. ALI

#5 London Tech St., University Hills
Subdivision, Barangay 80 Caloocan City
IBP # 118342 03 March 2020
PTR # CAL-11120780; Jan.20,2020
Caloocan City
SC Roll of Attorney’s No. 63738
MCLE No. V 0025970
Contact No. : 02-505-3110

Copy Furnished:

R. LAMBINO LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Plaintiff
UNIT 1702 17/F PRESTIGE TOWER, F. ORTIGAS JR. ROAD,
ORTIGAS CENTER, PASIG CITY 1600

SIGUION REYNA MONTECILLO & ONGSIAKO

Counsel for Defendant Nestor D. De Castro and
Grace D. De Castro-Mcauliffe
4th and 6th Flr., Citibank Center

6
8741 Paseo De Roxas, 1226 Makati City

EXPLANATION

Due to time and distance constraints, compliance with section 11, Rule 13 of
the Rules of Court, copies of this manifestation are served on the other parties
by registered mail.

ATTY. MICHAEL MITO-ON J. ALI