Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

(METC), Branch 3
th
7 Floor Parkview Plaza, Trida Bldg
(Masagana Bldg.), 984 Taft Ave.,
corner T.M. Kalaw St., Ermita, Manila

PHILIP MOUNTBATTEN, CIVIL CASE NO. 14344

FOR: Damages
Plaintiff,

-versus-

CAMILLA SHAND,
Defendant
x--------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, PHILIP MOUNTBATTEN, through the undersigned

and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

1. That the Plaintiff PHILIP MOUNTBATTEN, is of legal age, Filipino, with mailing
address at 1st St., Rizal Avenue, Binan City, Laguna, where he can be served
with summons and other processes of this Honorable Court;

2. That the Plaintiff is the Head of Security, of the Department of Water, in its
national office at Rizal Street, Manila City, Philippines;

3. That the Plaintiff as Head of Security has 12 regional security managers under
his direct report with 26 security supervisors/officers, and a total of 303 rank-and-
file security staff under the Department of Water, all over the Philippines;

4. That the Defendant, CAMILLA SHAND is of legal age, Filipina, residing at 111
New York Street, Philadelphia District, Taguig City where she can be served with
summons and other processes of this Honorable Court;

5. That both parties have the capacity to sue and be sued;

6. That on September 21, 2022 at 3PM, Ms. CAMILLA SHAND, the Auxiliary
Services Director of the Department of Water, alleges that the Plaintiff “barged”
into the Defendant’s office in Manila City, “drunk and reeking of liquor” accusing
 him of this misconduct without any basis and shouting this allegation against him,
our client;

7. That during the incident, the Defendant CAMILLA SHAND’s voice was an
earshot from her staff of managers and employees while shouting invectives at
the Plaintiff, while pointing at his face in a threatening manner, exclaiming
“Putang Ina mo, umalis ka sa opisina ko, anong akala mo sa akin, kakaya-
kayanin mo lang? E ako ang Auxiliary Services Director dito, ikaw glorified
security guard ka lang, lampa-lampa ka pang matanda ka, umalis ka dito!”;

8. That in the heat of the commotion that the Defendant caused; the Plaintiff, in
panic, inadvertently knocked over the wooden cabinet that the Defendant uses
as her personal locker. The Plaintiff fell over it with his own weight and with its
old plywood and corroded hinges the cabinet door and sidings broke with the
contents, comprising of the Defendant’s spare civilian clothes, got strewn over
the floor. The Plaintiff being liable for the accident, apologized for the mishap
afterwards;

9. That the security guard on duty approached the Defendant’s office and placated
the Defendant while the Plaintiff stood aghast and humiliated. Thenceforth, the
security guard asked the Plaintiff to respectfully leave, which the Plaintiff did, to
avoid further trouble;

10. That the security guard on duty acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not go to work
in his office in the morning, and just came in later to get a document from his
office and went directly to the Plaintiff’s office, as recorded his observations in the
logbook, herein attached as Annex “A”;

11. That the security guard on duty in addition on the security logbook, filed an
Affidavit as attached hereto as Annex “B,” which admits that the Plaintiff went
into the premises but vehemently absent of being “drunk and reeking of liquor”;

12. That further to this incident, while the Plaintiff presents photographs that shows
the Plaintiff spent his time at home celebrating the declaration of Martial Law
attached hereto as Annex “C” and “C-1” which does not include any liquor in
the celebration;

13. That being made aware of a CCTV footage showing Plaintiff staggering about,
the Plaintiff matter-of-factly asserts that he actually suffered a sprain and a
stubbed toe the night before the incident and was under pain medication which
made him drowsy and in a state of stupor;

14. That while Plaintiff admits he staggered to go down the stairs after coming from
the Defendant’s office and wobbled and because of the drowsiness from the pain
medicine and weak sprained legs that he suffered; thus, coupled with his
advanced age, the Plaintiff clearly had difficulty walking which resulted to the
unusual gait;

15. That the Plaintiff actually filed a leave on that same day with the leave form as
evidenced here attached as Annex “D”;
16. That while the Defendant has instituted an administrative complaint against the
Plaintiff with recommendations by the Investigating Officer finding a prima facie
case and a formal charge of Simple Misconduct against the Defendant, hereunto
attached as Annex “E,” never did the Plaintiff reneged on facing these
allegations in the pursuit of justice and fairness although the Plaintiff is protesting
the findings of the Officer considering that the security guard never did mention
the Plaintiff under the influence of liquor in his explanation;

17. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the administrative charges against the Plaintiff by
the Defendant is maliciously intended to harass him, because the Plaintiff
rebuffed the Defendant’s advances in last year’s Christmas Party when the
Defendant, while drunk, winked at him yet the Plaintiff did not entertain her;

18. Plaintiff attempted, through common friends and department initiated voluntary
mediation, to settle the misunderstanding to no avail, to the point that the
Defendant continuously reiterates such insults to the Plaintiff in front of other
people;

19. That to further prove the Plaintiff’s severe hypersensitivity to liquor and the
avoidance to alcohol consumption due to his medical condition of, herewith
attached is his medical certificate as Annex “F;”

20. That as indicated in Article 19, of the New Civil Code of the Philippines under
Human Relations to wit: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.” Further, in Article 21, “Any person who wilfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” Finally, in Article 26,
“Every person shall respect the dignity… and peace of mind of… other persons.
The following and similar acts… shall produce a cause of action for damages…
xxx (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his… lowly station in life or
other personal condition.”

21. That as a result of said wanton accusation of ‘being drunk, reeking of liquor’ with
CAMILLA SHAND derogatorily labelling the Plaintiff as a mere security guard
and an old senile man out of spite and causing actual irreparable damages to
the Plaintiff’'s good name for the interest in protecting his reputation, this suit is
brought forth;

22. That due to the incident, the Plaintiff is now a topic of intrigue, a butt of ridicule
amongst colleagues, with accusations of misconduct and in threat of suspension,
leaving the Plaintiff to endure further agony and stress of embarrassment, being
accused of misdeeds in conversations within our government agency and even in
other social circles;

23. That as a result of the willful and flagrant disregard, bereft of fundamental respect
shown by CAMILLA SHAND to the Plaintiff; our client PHILIP MOUNTBATTEN
suffered embarrassment and humiliation with the berating and invectives thrown
 at him during the incident, which he does not deserve nor is warranted, not at par
with the Plaintiffs’ status in life, with two decades of career service and being a
Doctor of Philosophy, and sheer hard work to reach such position in government
service, not in accordance with how civil servants or even an ordinary person
should be treated;

24. That as a result of the Defendant’s misconduct, willful and flagrant disregard for a
fellow civil servant and a civilized human being, herein Plaintiff PHILIP
MOUNTBATTEN suffered sleepless nights, social humiliation, and wounded
feelings that his reputation was tainted and is continuously being tainted by
swirling accusations against him;

25. That the willful, flagrant and malicious disregard of the Defendant has worked as
an injustice to the rights of the Plaintiff, and such mental anguish caused to
physically manifest in the Plaintiff’s worsening health condition, with high blood
pressure and anxiety attacks that necessitated for him to be absent from work
due to weakness for 5 days;

26. That as a consequence, the Plaintiff was compelled to institute the instant action
against the Defendant. They were constrained to retain the services of counsel to
whom they paid an acceptance fee of Forty Thousand Pesos (Php40,000.00)
and bound themselves to pay the undersigned counsel an appearance fee of
One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php1,500.00) per appearance;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the forgoing premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Honorable Court render judgment ordering Defendant to pay
herein Plaintiff the following amounts:

1. Php15,000.00, representing the actual damages suffered by the

Plaintiff;

2. Php150,000.00 as moral damages

3. Php150,000.00 as exemplary damages

4. Php40,000.00 as attorney’s fee;

Plaintiffs likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable
under the premises.

SO PRAYED.

Manila City, Philippines

November 20, 2022