REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH (4TH) JUDICIAL REGION
CITY OF TANUAN, BATANGAS

BRANCH 06

SI MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE No. xxxxxxxx

- versus -

SPS. X and Y MANDELA,

Defendants.

X-----------------------------------------------X

REPLY
(Re: Comment/Opposition 03 May 2019)

Defendants, SPS. X and Y MANDELA, by counsel, to this

Honorable Office, respectfully states:

1. One of the bases from which Complainant anchors one of

its Comment/Opposition dated 03 May 2019 on the fact that the
Motion for Reconsideration dated 11 March 2019 was not verified.

2. With all due respect, but the complainant’s argument has

no legal basis to stand on.

3. Though defendants submit, that under Section 4 of the

Revised Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a Motion for
Postponement should be verified, it should be noted that Rules of
Court also provides that a counsel’s signature serves as a
certification that (1) he has read the pleading; (2) to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it;
and (3) it is not interposed for delay.1

4. As to the contents of a verification, it should be noted that

under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, it provides:

1
Section 7, Rule 3, Rules of Court.
1
 “Section 4. Verification. — Except when
otherwise specifically required by law
or rule, pleadings need not be under
oath, verified or accompanied by
affidavit .(5a)

A pleading is verified by an affidavit

that the affiant has read the pleading
and that the allegations therein are
true and correct of his knowledge and
belief.

A pleading required to be verified which

contains a verification based on
"information and belief", or upon
"knowledge, information and belief", or
lacks a proper verification, shall be
treated as an unsigned pleading. 

5. In addition, it is also provided under case of Tapay, et al.

v. Bancolo, et al.2 that:

“…[B]y affixing one’s signature to a

pleading, it is counsel alone who has
the responsibility to certify to these
matters and give legal effect to the
document.”

6. Thus, since Atty. Lupin III, then counsel for defendants,

signed the aforementioned Motion for Postponement dated 05
December 2018, it is clear that the aforementioned pleading was
verified – as it is the counsel himself who is filing the said Motion.

7. In addition, it must be noted, that although the

aforementioned Motion for Postponement dated 05 December 2018
was received by plaintiff and this Honorable Court only a day before
the date of the hearing, it should be noted that the three (3) day
notice requirement of the Rules of Court is not a hard and fast rule.

8. This is as discussed in the ruling in the case of Preysler,

Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Development Corporation 3, to wit:

“The three-day notice rule is not

absolute. A liberal construction of the
procedural rules is proper where the
lapse in the literal observance of a
2
A.C. No. 9604, 20 March 2013.
3
G.R. No. 201601, March 12, 2014
2
 rule of procedure has not prejudiced the
adverse party and has not deprived the
court of its authority. Indeed, Section
6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides
that the Rules should be liberally
construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action
and proceeding. Rules of procedure are
tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice, and courts must
avoid their strict and rigid application
which would result in technicalities
that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice.” 

9. In the instant case, the filing of the Motion for

Postponement was not aimed to bring any prejudice to the rights of
the plaintiff, but was merely submitted for the sole reason that the
handling counsel was unable to attend the hearing set 06 December
2019.

10. Since no prejudice would be incurred by the plaintiff if

ever the Honorable Court grants defendants’ prayer for
postponement, it is therefore respectfully submitted that the
subsequent denial of the aforementioned Motion resulted into a game
of technicalities, which is what the Supreme Court seeks in its ruling
in the case of Albert v. University Publishing Co.4, to wit:

“By "due process of law" we mean " "a

law which hears before it condemns;
which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders
judgment only after trial. ... ." (4
Wheaton, U.S. 518, 581.)"; or, as this
Court has said, " "Due process of law"
contemplates notice and opportunity to
be heard before judgment is rendered,
affecting one's person or property"
(Lopez vs. Director of Lands, 47 Phil.
23, 32)." (Sicat vs. Reyes, L-11023,
Dec. 14, 1956.) And it may not be amiss
to mention here also that the "due
process" clause of the Constitution is
designed to secure justice as a living
reality; not to sacrifice it by paying
undue homage to formality.
For substance must prevail over form. It
4
G.R. No. L-19118, 30 January 1965.
3
 may now be trite, but none the less apt,
to quote what long ago we said in Alonso
vs. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315, 321-322:

A litigation is not a game of

technicalities in which one, more deeply
schooled and skilled in the subtle art
of movement and position, entraps and
destroys the other. It is, rather, a
contest in which each contending party
fully and fairly lays before the court
the facts in issue and then, brushing
side as wholly trivial and indecisive
all imperfections of form and
technicalities of procedure, asks that
Justice be done upon the merits.
Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be
won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality,
when it deserts its proper office as an
aid to justice and becomes its great
hindrance and chief enemy, deserves
scant consideration from courts. There
should be no vested rights in
technicalities.”

(Emphasis and Underlining provided)

11. Also, regarding the failure of then counsel to secure a

notarized medical certificate, it was then counsel’s prayer that he was
not able to secure the same due to the condition that he was then
suffering. It must be noted, that on date of filing of this Reply, Atty.
Lupin III had already resigned from the Law Firm, making it hard for
the current undersigned counsel to secure the required document for
filing. Thus, undersigned counsel begs for the kind indulgence of this
Honorable Court regarding the matter.

12. Lastly, regarding the postponements that were filed by the

defendants in the instant case, it respectfully submitted that the
counsel for defendants did not intend to delay the proceedings of this
case by filing aforementioned Motions.

13. It must be noted, that the aforementioned postponements

were substantiated with their respective valid grounds which justifies
the granting of the same. Thus, defendants, through undersigned
counsel, respectfully entreats the Honorable Court to not penalize
defendants for its past postponements which were rightfully granted
by this Honorable Court.

4
 14. Finally, defendants pray that the Honorable Court see
past the allegations of plaintiff, and instead, allow defendants to show
its legitimate defense and prevent the prejudice that they would suffer
through the inadvertence of their former counsel.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendants SPOUSES X

and Y Mandela, reiterates their respectful prayer for the Honorable
Court RECONSIDER its Order dated 06 December 2018.

Other reliefs, just an equitable under the circumstances, are

likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City for the City of Tanauan, Batangas

30 May 2019.

GOEMON
Roll No. 000000
PTR No. 5566440MD / 03-Jan-2018 / Makati City
IBP No. 00221133 / 04-Jan-2018 / Quezon City
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. V-0000000
20-Apr-2016

COPY FURNISHED

ZENIGATA LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Plaintiff
INTERPOL

EXPLANATION

Unless otherwise personally filed and/or served, a copy of this

pleading was filed and/or served upon the Honorable Court and the
foregoing addressees respectively by means of registered mail with
return card in accordance with Sections 5, 7, 11 and 13 of Rule 13 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on account of the distance
between the undersigned counsel’s office and that of the Honorable
Court and the said addressees, as well as the lack of material time
and messengerial personnel to effect personal service.

5
 GOEMON