REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 12, OLONGAPO CITY

JOAN PADILLA,
Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 123

For: Specific Performance and Damages

VILLAR & VILLAR CO.

Defendant.

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

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff, represented by the undersigned counsel as her attorney-in-law,

respectfully submits to this Honorable Court this Pre-Trial Brief, to wit:

I.
POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR ALTERNATIVE
MODES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Plaintiff, is not willing to consider any amicable settlement or undergo
alternative modes of dispute resolution with respect to the primary prayer of this
petition.

II.
PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS
The Plaintiff proposes the following stipulation of facts:
1. That the Plaintiff owns the lot located at 23 Camachile St, West
Tapinac, Olongapo City;
2. That on December 3, 2019, the plaintiff verbally contracted with the
Spouses Arch. Cynthia and Engr. Manny Villar representing Villar & Villar
Co. to which the latter agreed for the undertaking of the construction of the
2-storey assembly hall on her resort located at 23 Camachile St, West
Tapinac, Olongapo City in consideration of a fixed value of Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000) with a retention clause of 10% of the value as a
security for the construction.
3. That it was agreed by both parties that the structural capacity of the
function area located at the second floor of the assembly hall was to hold the
weight of a maximum of 200 persons;
4. That underneath the assembly area will be allotted for the construction
of three rooms;
5. That on December 3, 2020, the assembly hall was erected and it was
informally turned-over to the Plaintiff by the defendant;
6. That on January 12, 2021, the Plaintiff along with her friend, Engr.
Sy, went to the assembly hall and upon checking, they immediately told the
Spouses Villar that the assembly area was unstable;
7. That on January 13, 2021, Engr. Villar told the Plaintiff that maybe it
was just due to her vertigo that the area seemed unstable or shaky.
8. That on January 15, 2021, the Plaintiff re-confirmed the instability of
the function area by trying to jump inside the said room.
9. That on January 27, 2021, the defendant told the plaintiff that they
will conduct an investigation towards the complaint of the plaintiff;
10. That on February 4, 2021, Engr. Roque investigated the structural
integrity of the area, to which in his report, it was stated that there were
hairline cracks on the beams of the assembly area which acted as the
foundation of the building which is in Annex A;
11. That the Defendant suggested that there should be a retrofitting of the
2-storey assembly hall;
12. That in order to prevent further damage to the property, the Defendant
retrofitted the assembly hall which is in Annex B;
13. That the Defendant demanded the plaintiff for the payment of the
retrofitting made by them;
14. That the Defendant should shoulder the expenses because they did not
properly fulfil their obligations under the contract;
15. That the Defendant acted upon the contract in contravention of the
tenor of its obligation to construct a sturdy 2-storey assembly hall;
16. That under Articles 1167 and 1191 of the Civil Code, the person who
acted in contravention of the tenor of the obligation shall shoulder the cost of
the obligation and the injured party may choose between the fulfilment and
the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case.
Article 1167 of the Civil Code, it states that, if the person obliged to do
something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost. This same
rule shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor of the
obligation. Furthermore, it may be decreed that what has been poorly done
be undone;
17. That the Plaintiff opted for the fulfilment of the obligation, mainly for
the defendant to construct a 2-storey assembly hall and shoulder the
expenses, and to be liable for damages due to loss of income suffered by the
Plaintiff;

III.
ISSUES TO BE TRIED AND RESOLVED
 The Plaintiff proposes the following issues to be tried and resolved by this
Honorable Court:
1. Whether or not the Defendant acted in contravention of the tenor of their
obligation as provided under Article 1191 of the Civil Code;
2. Whether or not the Defendant is liable for damages due to the loss of
income suffered by the Plaintiff.

IV.
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED
The Plaintiff will present the following documents:
1. Evaluation Report made by Engr. Harry Roque;
2. Photographs of the beams supporting the assembly hall taken by the
Plaintiff;
3. Transfer Certificate Title of Lot 24-B in Olongapo City which will serve as a
proof of ownership of the Plaintiff.

V.
WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED
The plaintiff will present the following witnesses:
1. Engr. Henry Sy, the friend of the Plaintiff who will testify as to the presence
of the faulty beams in the assembly hall;
2. Engr. Harry Roque, the civil engineer who inspected the finished
construction area and rendered an evaluation report thereafter;
3. Mr. Robin Padilla, the brother of the Plaintiff, who will testify as to the
existence of the mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
for the construction of the Assembly Hall.
4. Other witnesses as may be determined to be relevant to the case during the
course of the trial.

VI.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND RELIEFS PRAYED FOR
 It is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgement be
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and that after judgement;
a. Ordering the defendant to pay the expenses for the retrofitting of the assembly
hall;
b. Ordering the defendant to pay P60,000 for actual damages suffered by the
plaintiff and P50,000 for attorney’s fees.

Such other reliefs and other remedies under the premises are likewise prayed for.
VII.
POINTS OF LAW AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES
1) Article 1167. If a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same
shall be executed at his cost.

2) Article 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones,

in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon
him.

The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of
the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also
seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should
become impossible.

The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause
authorizing the fixing of a period.

This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who

have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the
Mortgage Law.

3) Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault
or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
 4) Ngo Sin Sing and Ticia Dy Ngo vs. Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc., and Contech
Construction Technology Development Corporation, G.R. No. 170596,
November 28, 2008
VIII.
AVAILABLE DATES FOR TRIAL
The Petitioner respectfully requests that the trial dates be agreed upon in
open court at such dates and time convenient to the parties and the calendar of this
Honorable Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto this
Honorable Court that the foregoing Pre-Trial be duly noted.

Olongapo City, 07 June 2021

(SGD.) Justine Mark N. Dagdag

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Pasig Boating Center
180 Burnham Lake, PasigCity

Copy furnished:
GACUTAN & SALAZAR LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Respondent
Address: 10/F Commerce Centre, Valero St.,
Salcedo Village, Makati
Contact Nos.: (081) 874-1478 to 90
 EXPLANATION
Service of this petition is by registered mail instead of personal service
because of lack of messengerial aide to make personal service.

(SGD.) Justine Mark N. Dagdag

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Pasig Boating Center
180 Burnham Lake, PasigCity
 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL
I, Rodel Ardales, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Justine Mark N. Dagdag, counsel for
petitioner in the case entitled “Padilla v. Villar & Villar Co.”, Civil Case No. 123,
and as such messenger I served upon the counsels of the adverse party, the petition
filed in said case:
By depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly
addressed to the counsels at their office, with postage fully prepaid, and with
instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if
undelivered, this 12th day of November 2021, as shown by Registry No. 12345
dated 12 November 2012 of the post office of Makati City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 12th day of
November 2021 at Makati City.
(SGD.) RODEL ARDALES
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 12th day of November 2021 at
Makati City, affiant exhibiting to me her Driver's License No. 12345852515 which
will expire on April 26, 2014.
(SGD.) MICHAEL DELA CRUZ
Notary Public
Makati City

Doc. No. 209;

Page No. 124;
Book No. 21;
Series of 2021