Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

National Capital Region
Quezon City

Yen Warren P. Canoy,

Complainant,

NLRC Case No. 06-00594-22

-Versus- HON. LA LUDIVINA I. TAGUINOD

SM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Jose Mari Banzon
Respondent,
x---------------------x

ANSWER
(TO RESPONDENTS’ REPLY)

COMPLAINANT YEN WARREN P. CANOY by himself and unto

this Honorable Labor Arbitration Office, most respectfully states:

1. Again, before digging into the arguments, the complainant first

of all would like to raise these issues and put into the record the
inappropriate behavior of the respondent in submitting “self-serving” and
“misleading” evidence which is comparable to a “fake news” by using
either falsify documents or forged documentary evidence not just once but
thrice including the forged and altered copy of Accreditation Agreement
submitted by the respondent in their POSITION PAPER for being unfairly
altered and forged either to misinformed or disinformed this Honorable
office.

2. Just like "fake news" who deceives people and those who are
deceived by fake news tend to make bad decisions. Fake news thrives not
only on wrong information but also on bad and deceiving arguments by

Answer page 1
resorting to "Logical Fallacies". A "logical fallacy" is an error in reasoning
that renders an argument invalid. This is very evident in some of the
respondent's arguments both in their POSITION PAPER and REPLY in a
desperate attempt to justify the wrongful and unlawful termination of the
complainant's contract.

3. Submitting those kinds of "documentary evidence" is a very

crucial factor that set the premise for the credibility and sincerity of the
respondent in their arguments. Resorting to "fake news" as their "legal
strategy" where its only main purpose is either to "misinform” or to
"disinform" this Honorable office and using "wordplay" in underestimating
the "intelligence" of the complainant.

4. “Misinformation” is defined as false information

unintentionally disseminated while “Disinformation” refers to the deliberate
use of false information or pieces of evidence to convince and both are used
for the main purpose or intent to deceive.

5. The respondents repeated emphasis that this Honorable Office

has no jurisdiction over this case while at the same time resorting to "fake
news legal strategy" only shows that it has no "valid argument" to justify the
unlawful termination of the complainant's contract in a speedy and less
costly alternative mode of resolving a labor dispute knowing that this
Honorable Office is well equipped to identify bad and deceiving arguments
and possessed the ability to detect bad reasoning or logical fallacies.

6. The respondent's repeated insistence that this case should be

settled in a regular court as a civil case is a legal strategy to frustrate the
complainant through legal technicalities by winning the case based on
"default" knowing the insufficiency of the complainant's legal and judicial
knowledge or the capacity to avail a legal counsel to defend his case in a
regular court.

Answer page 2
 7. Admittedly, the complainant who solely represents himself
without any legal or judicial knowledge nor any idea whatsoever of any
judicial proceedings of a regular court as well as the financial capacity to
afford a service of a private lawyer has to depend literally on "GOOGLE
SEARCH" in raising his legal arguments in seeking justice to depend on his
rights has no match against a seasoned ace lawyer who came from a
prestigious law school and an associate partner of a top law firm in the
country representing one of the biggest conglomerate not just in the
Philippines but in whole southeast Asia as legal counsel.

8. The complainant as a true-blooded Salesperson is not a lawyer

but knows his basic right and knows the basic laws because as a human
being and as a citizen of this country you cannot go into this life realistically
not to conform to what is right and what is wrong in accordance with what
governs all of us equally and always believe in valid and logical reasoning
based on facts and should be decided by "arguments" and not on a mere
"technicality" and this instant case should be pursued in this Honorable
Office and not in a regular court on the premise that there is indeed an
"employee-employer" relationship do exist in a form of Project-Based
Employee or Project Employee as stated and clearly defines in the
Agreement that both parties entered into therefore NLRC has the jurisdiction
over this subject matter.

9. The complainant believes that his ignorance of the law as well

as all his judicial shortcomings in terms of judicial procedure knowledge of
a regular court can be offset here in NLRC as the proceedings before this
Honorable Office shall be non-litigious. Subject to the requirements of due
process, the technicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtained in the
courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto which lessens the burden of the
complainant in defending himself.

Answer page 3
 10. Par. 15 Page 7 of the respondent's Reply cited the adherence to
the four-fold test and further stressed that argument on the "element of
control" in Par. 21 up to Par. 22 Page 8 establishing the "employee-
employer" relationship by making it appear that the complainant has control
over his work based on the email letter the complainant sent to Ms. Ann Tan
is an irrelevant conclusion also known as "ignoratio elanchi" or "missing the
point" type of argument. It's an informal fallacy of presenting an argument
that may or may not be logically valid and sound but fails to address the
issue in question.

11. First and foremost, that email is a suggestion that was never
approved because it goes against their "monkey business" which they
thought that I am criticizing them when in fact I am just answering all of Mr.
Evangelista's tirade against me and my business plan that I am requesting for
an audience with the Marketing Department for funding both in our group
social media and to the whole division that open's the "can of worm" in their
"mafia-style" corruption in manipulating the sales production at the expense
of their Sales Agent in getting a "Deployment Budget" which is the main
and true issue in the unlawful termination of complainant's contract.

12. Sidestepping the issue of illegal termination of the

complainant's contract on the premise of the respondent's argument that this
Honorable Office has no jurisdiction over this instant case because of the
non-existence of an "employee-employer" relationship which the
complainant beg to disagree with both as “jurisprudence” based on what
was stipulated in the contract and as a “normal practice” as common
knowledge in the Real Estate Industry.

13. As jurisprudence, the elements of control in establishing that

there is an employee-employer relationship existed on both parties based on
the administrative task and the managerial work of the complainant as

Answer page 4
his main job as stipulated in the contract and that the respondent
dictates the means and methods of complainants result.

14. In Tongko v. Manulife G.R. No. 167622 (June 29, 2010) to

wit;
“..From jurisprudence, an important lesson that the first
Insular Life case teaches us is that a commitment to abide by the
rules and regulations of an insurance company does not ipso facto
make the insurance agent an employee. Neither do guidelines
somehow restrictive of the insurance agents' conduct necessarily
indicate control as this term is defined in jurisprudence.
Guidelines indicative of labor law control, as the first Insular
Life case tells us, should not merely relate to the mutually
desired result intended by the contractual relationship; they must
have the nature of dictating the means or methods to be employed
in attaining the result, or of fixing the methodology and of
binding or restricting the party hired to the use of these means.
Results-wise, the principal can impose production quotas and can
determine how many agents, with specific territories, ought to be
employed to achieve the company's objectives. These are
management policy decisions that the labor law element of control
cannot reach. Our ruling in these respects in the first Insular
Life case was practically reiterated in Carungcong. Thus, as will
be shown more fully below, Manulifes codes of conduct, all of
which do not intrude into the insurance agents' means and manner
of conducting their sales and only control them as to the desired
results and Insurance Code norms, cannot be used as a basis for a
finding that the labor law concept of control existed between
Manulife and Tongko. The dissent considers the imposition of
administrative and managerial functions on Tongko as indicative of
labor law control; thus, Tongko as manager, but not as an
insurance agent, became a Manulife employee. It drew this
conclusion from what the other Manulife managers disclosed in
their affidavits (i.e., their enumerated administrative and
managerial functions) and after comparing these statements with
the managers in Grepalife. The dissent compared the control
exercised by Manulife over its managers in the present case with
the control the managers in the Grepalife case exercised over
their employees.”

...The Grepalife case dealt with the sole issue of whether the
Ruiz brothers appointment as zone supervisor and district manager
made them employees of Grepalife.Indeed, because of the presence
of the element of control in their contract of engagements, they
were considered Grepalifes employees. This did not mean, however,
that they were simultaneously considered agents as well as
employees of Grepalife; the Courts ruling never implied that this

Answer page 5
 situation existed insofar as the Ruiz brothers were concerned.
The Courts statement the Insurance Code may govern the licensing
requirements and other particular duties of insurance agents, but
it does not bar the application of the Labor Code with regard to
labor standards and labor relations simply means that when an
insurance company has exercised control over its agents so as to
make them their employees, the relationship between the parties,
which was otherwise one for agency governed by the Civil Code and
the Insurance Code, will now be governed by the Labor Code. The
reason for this is simple the contract of agency has been
transformed into an employer-employee relationship...”

15. As practiced in Real Estate Industry, there are two major

classifications of selling real estate in the Philippines. One is “PROJECT
SELLING” and the other one is “BROKERAGE SELLING”.

16. So let us differentiate the two, first in terms of their type of tax
based on the ATR Form (Annual Tax Return) they are using when filling an
income tax with BIR.

17. “Project Selling” uses BIR Form 1701 also known as Annual
Tax Return for “MIXED-INCOME EARNERS” or any individual whose
earnings come from both being Self-Employed and being Employed either
engage in trade or business or the exercise of their profession and at the
same time receiving a compensation just like the complainant.

18. While “BROKERAGE SELLING” uses BIR Form 1701A

also known as, Annual Income Tax Return for Individuals Earning Income
PURELY from Business/Profession or those under the graduated income tax
rates with OSD as a mode of deduction or those who opted to avail of the
8% flat income tax rate which the respondent is referring on Par. 20 Page 8
of their REPLY Paper that invalidates their arguments.

19. As to the scope, “Project Selling” from the word “project”

itself which means that you’ll be selling exclusively the Developer's
projects that are either pre-selling or ready for occupancy. Just like in the

Answer page 6
case of the complainant as stipulated in the Accreditation Contract that he
enters with the respondent as a “PROJECT-BASED EMPLOYEE” or
“PROJECT EMPLOYEE”.

20. In terms of Work Contract, as “Project Selling” you have to

apply for work under a real estate developer or you may be recruited by the
sales manager and have to undergo a training period. After passing the
training and submitting all the requirements you'll get an employment
contract either as a “Regular Employee” or “Project Employee” which is
contractual by nature but usually hired as a contractual employee without
having the benefits of SSS, Philhealth and PAG-IBIG benefits, Overtime
pay, Holiday Pay, etc. just like the employment status of the complainant.
For that the said government-mandated benefits are for Regular Employees
as acknowledged by the respondent in their REPLY Paper Par. 19 Page 8.
but it doesn't follow that having none of those mentioned benefits will
disqualify your status as an "employee" of a company.

21. As for remuneration or compensation, "Project Selling" aside

from the commission the "Seller" or what was more popularly called "In-
House Sales Agent" will also receive a monthly allowance usually paid
bi-weekly basis and subject to 10% tax which can be removed once you fail
to reach your sales target.

22. That is why the ITR (Income tax return) used by the “Project-
Selling” employee or commonly known as “In-House Sales Agent” is
ATR Form 1701 or Income Tax Return for Mixed Income Earners or any
individuals who earned either by trade or business or in the exercise of their
profession and receiving compensation income as well. Just like the
complainant itself. (Attached herewith is a copy of the complainant's filed
1901 form with the BIR dated March 30, 2021, as ANNEX "A").

Answer page 7
 23. A "Project Selling" usually has a sales quota and works in an
office during regular hours or if assigned by his/her managers for duty either
by showroom or booth manning. Just like in the case of the complainant
since they are part of SMDC's International Sales Division. They are
required to be sent abroad for a tour of duty not less than 30 days up to a
maximum of 90 days to market and sell SMDC's projects and in return, the
Company gives them a deployment budget that contradicts the claim of the
respondent that the complainant adopts his working methods without any
control from the respondents or the "element of control" in one of the four-
fold tests. The fact that the complainant is given a sales quota is a form of
control by the respondent itself because at the end of the day. The
complainant will be evaluated based on his "sales production" and not on his
"method of sales" as claimed by the respondent.(Attached herewith is a
copy of DEPLOYMENT BUDGET as per country of deployment, as
ANNEX "B").

24. Whereas, “BROKERAGE SELLING” on the other hand

involves selling all types of real estate from commercial, residential, and
industrial. Or can be house and lot, condominiums, second-hand properties,
memorial lots, foreclosed properties, and even lead properties and has no
sales quota and can work freely on its liking without any exclusive
commitment in and/or any developer or entity that he transacts with.

25. In Annex “1” of the respondent's Reply Paper. The alleged e-

mail Performance Evaluation Report submitted by Mr. Evangelista to HR is
“self-serving” evidence based on an “Appeal to Authority fallacy” type of
argument. This fallacy occurs when one claims something is true simply
because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any
other supporting evidence offered. An argument to be valid should only
be supported by facts and logical inferences. Using an authority such as
the statement of Mr. Evangelista as the complainant's immediate supervisor
means relying upon the testimony, not facts.

Answer page 8
 26. Since it has no supporting documents from the company
record to prove its validity nor a confirmation email coming from the
intended receiver particularly from HR to validate the authenticity of that
alleged e-mail PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT to prove that it
was submitted on November 6, 2021, at 1:11 pm to HR as claimed by the
respondent in adherence to SRTD-IOM-2986 as appeared in ANNEX “1” of
their REPLY.

27. The way it was presented in terms of email “appearance” and

“layout design” doesn’t conform to a regular e-mail format when sending or
receiving an e-mail message. Aside from the appearance of the actual format
which is very “dubious”. It’s very uncommon to present an email message
as documentary evidence to “black-out” the name and email address of that
particular receiver to secure a copy of that specific e-mail message for
counter-checking that there was indeed an e-mail message that was sent by
Mr. Evangelista on that particular date and time with the same context of the
message to that person or receiver.

28. It doesn't make sense on the part of the complainant to write an

email request explaining the validity of his request for an administrative
hearing and questioning the legality of both the "diversion of the fund" of
the complainant's marketing budget and the untimely termination of the
contract while on the middle of a sales transactions as shown in the email
message of the complainant dated November 22, 2021, to Ms. Ann Tan if
there was indeed a SEF issued informing the complainant that his contract
was already expired on November 15, 2021. (Attached herewith is a
screenshot copy of the complainant's e-mail letter to Ms. Tan Requesting
an Administrative Hearing and Transfer of the Sales Director as ANNEX
"C" to ANNEX "C-3" ).

Answer page 9
 29. If there was indeed a submitted SEF on November 6, 2021, as
claimed by the respondent it makes the complainant's request for an
administrative hearing automatically invalid and should not be granted or to
be entertained.

30. The complainant will guarantee that there was none. The simple
fact that the complainant wrote an email message asking for guidance on the
procedural process of renewing his accreditation contract under O.P. (Out of
Payroll) Status to Ms. Leticia Bacabis, Assistant Accreditation Manager
of SRTD (Sales Recruitment and Training Department) through which the
former responded and never rebutted that there was NO SEF submitted
before November 15, 2021, up to November 25, 2021, that automatically
renew the complainant contract under O.P. (Out of Payroll) status. .
(Attached herewith is a screenshot copy of e-mail messages of the
complainant and Ms. Bacabis as ANNEX "D" to ANNEX "D-2").

31. Which Mr. Evangelista acknowledged and responded to the

instruction of SRTD (Sales Recruitment and Training Department) with no
resistance to the transfer of the complainant to another Sales Director as well
as the reactivation of the complainant's accreditation as adherence to the
company policies and protocol. (Attached herewith is a screenshot copy of
an e-mail message coming from Mr. Evangelista dated November 30, 2021,
as ANNEX "E").

32. With regards to respondent’s argument on Par. 7 Page 5 of their

Reply Paper alleged that the complainant's non-renewal of the contract is
due to failure to reach the Sales Quota is a “Hasty Generalization” or a type
of reasoning where the conclusion is based on a piece of insufficient
evidence. Here, the respondent rushes to a conclusion before having all the
relevant facts since the actual expiration of the complainant's contract is
on November 25, 2021, and not November 15, 2021, considering that the
complainant is in the middle of a sales transaction with 5% SPOT

Answer page 10
DOWNPAYMANENT and on the process of a negotiation with a "big
Ticket" account that involves a minimum requirement of 200 units that
would put the complainant in a good position in reaching his sales quota way
beyond what was required to him as sales target if only the respondent
allows the complainant to finish his transaction as stated in the contract
particularly No. 2 Page 1 to wit;
"For the term of this Accreditation, you shall monitor and evaluate
sales and the work outputs of the sales agents engaged to market
and sell the Real Estate inventory covered by the project. ASD shall
monitor and ensure proper controls and compliance by buyers
concerning documentation requirements of the Company for each
sales transaction…”

33. Unfortunately, Miss Ann Tan as Division Sales Head (DSH)

didn’t give her approval for the transfer of the complainant to another Sales
Director and instead used her position in influencing the blocking of
issuance of contract renewal of the complainant under O.P. (Out of Payroll)
status and instead approved the termination of the contract of the
complainant initiated by Mr. Evangelista on November 15, 2021.

34. As a Project-based employee or Project employee, the security

of tenure doesn’t strictly end on the duration of the date in the contract but
also on the completion of the transaction, task, work, undertakings, phase, or
project itself as defined in the Book of Labor Code.

35. Whereas in the respondent's ANNEX “2” which was attached

in their REPLY Paper about their statement on Par. 6 Page 2 they claimed
that as early as September 15, 2021, the complainant has already been
informed by Mr. Evangelista of his none renewal of contract based on the
messenger conversation of the complainant with Mr. Evangelista was a
“blatant lie” on the part of the respondent.

Answer page 11
 36. The said conversation was dated November 9 up to
November 15, 2021, and not September 15, 2021, as claimed by the
respondent on their Reply Paper and the topic was about the request of the
complainant to hold his transfer to another group on November 25, 2021,
or until the completion of the sales transaction with Mr. Cordova the
complainant's client. (Attached herewith are the complete screenshot
messenger conversation of the complainant and Mr. Evangelista dated
November 9 up to 15, 2021 as ANNEX “F” to “F-11”).

37. As appeared in that messenger conversation, there was no

mention nor reference that Mr. Evangelista gave notice as early as
September 15, 2021, that the complainant's contract will never be renewed
due to failure to meet the required sales quota as claimed by the respondent
on Par. 6 Page 2 of their Position Paper.

38. Nevertheless, that argument as well as their documentary

evidence has no bearing in this case aside from the fact that it was all
“fabricated” and “forged” the truth remains that the Accreditation Contract
of the complainant will expire on November 25, 2021, and not November
15, 2021, as acknowledged by the respondent on their REPLY Paper Par. 1
Page 1. Therefore, the termination of the complainant’s contract is indeed
unlawful and illegal under the Labor Code.

39. It’s very uncanny for the respondent to point fingers and
accused the complainant that all his allegations are “fabricated” as
mentioned in Par. 5 Page 2 of the respondent's REPLY paper where it was
the respondent himself who is so fond of submitting a forged, altered and
"self-serving fabricated evidence" in justify the “defrauding” of the
complainant’s P192,343.86 deployment budget by masquerading their
arguments that the complainant failed to meet his Sales Quota and the
“least performing broker on his team” with a mere 10.11% production as the

Answer page 12
basis of their termination of complainant's contract on November 15, 2021,
has no factual and legal basis in a form of “weak analogy”.

40. For one, two (2) of the complainant’s contemporaries

particularly Miss Narag and Mr. Burgos are given a Marketing Budget of a
minimum of P500,000.00 up to not less than P1Million for their 5 months
deployment abroad but also fell short of their Sales Quota considering
the large amount of fund and marketing support that they enjoy and was
deployed abroad in a country with a “high market demand” but still didn’t
hit their sales target as well which makes them mathematically less
effective in their work performance based on “cost production” yet
they were still given a contract renewal under O.P. status compare to the
complainant’s zero marketing budget and zero marketing support but
with a P910,055.55 personal net receivables as commission in five (5)
months operations which is substantial enough for a “charge-back” of one
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) marketing budget which was unlawfully
“TERMINATED” in the middle of a sales transaction even before his
contract expire and was deprived for contract renewal under O.P. status
without legal basis that prevented the complainant to continue his sales
transactions with his clients. (Attached herewith is the 2021 Ten Months
Sale s produ cti on of Mr. Ev ang elis ta ’s Te am as ANNE X “G”)

41. So where is the justice in that statement that the complainant is

the “least performing” ASD in his team and that the complainant's failure to
reach his sales quota was the reason for his termination?

42. As stated in the contract, particularly No. 8 Page 2 it says;

"The ASD shall be given his Sales Quota at the beginning of the
engagement….In the alternative, the Company may opt to continue
this Accreditation even if ASD fails to meet the prescribed
requirements, but on the condition that the ASD shall not be entitled
to any monthly allowance or cash allowance in the meantime…"

Answer page 13
 43. The complainant is entitled to exercise to continue his
accreditation as stipulated and mandated in the contract since NO SEF
was submitted by Mr. Evangelista in accordance to IOM-2986 or Inter-
Office Memo on Accreditation Updated for Contract Renewal.

44. Aside from that particular company policy. As a “PROJECT-

BASED EMPLOYEE”, the complainant has the benefit of having the
security of tenure for the duration of the contract as an employee”
therefore the length of his employment is determined by the completion of
the task for which he was hired unless the dismissal is for just or authorized
cause subject to the requirements of due process or prior notice as stipulated
in the contract that both parties entered into.

45. A written notice [of] termination served on the employee

indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds
have been established to justify his termination. In case of termination, the
foregoing notices shall be served on the employee's last known address
which was none.

46. The respondent argues that the complainant, being a real estate
broker is subject to professional tax as shown in their ANNEX "3" of their
Reply Paper again is "self-serving" evidence for it only shows the income
payments for 10% commission tax but they never show the other 10%
deduction from the P35,000.00 monthly allowance as stipulated in the
contract and acknowledge by the respondent in their Position Paper,
particularly Par. 7 Page 3 that the complainant is receiving such an amount
aside from his commission as a form of wage.

47. That the respondent has been diligently deducting 10% tax on
the complainant's P35.000.00 monthly allowance on a bi-weekly basis right
from the start of the contract up to the end of the complainant's last payment
in a form of “final pay” which was given on April 7, 2022, in a form of

Answer page 14
manager's check that invalidates the claimed of the respondent that the
complainant is paid purely in a commission basis and is not part of the
payroll of the Company.(Attached herewith is a screenshot copy of the
email for Final Pay from HR as ANNEX "H").

48. In response to the repeated clamor of the respondent that the

complainant present any competent and relevant evidence to prove may
be admitted which the complainant need not to for the Contract itself that
both parties had signed and entered unto is more than enough
substantial evidence to show that there was indeed an “Employee-
Employer” relationship in a form of “PROJECT-BASED EMPLOYEE”
or “PROJECT EMPLOYEE”.

49. But before I put the final nail in invalidating the respondent’s
argument and declare it checkmate in two moves. Allow me to raise another
issue on the premise of “Issued not being raise is deemed waived” that’s
why I would like to make it clear that the complainant is also praying for
reinstatement, separation pay or backwages as stated in his “prayer” both
in his verified complaint and position paper that “Other reliefs just and
equitable under the premises are also prayed for”.

50. Lastly, with the indulgence of our Honorable Arbiter, in

satisfying the respondent request in citing Fuji Television Network, Inc. v.
Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45. Kindly allow the complainant to present his
Certificate of Employment issued by the Company which was requested by
the complainant himself and was issued on July 30, 2021, certified and
signed by no less than Mr.Robbie Candelaria, Senior Sales Recruitment
and Training Manager of SMDC. (Attached herewith is a copy of
Certificate of Employment as ANNEX “I”)

51. As well as the scanned copy of SMDC’s Company I.D. that

was issued on May 16, 2021, with an I.D. # 20210407 as a proof that the

Answer page 15
complainant is an employee of SMDC as “Accepted Form of Evidence” to
establish an “employee-employer” relationship as mentioned by the
respondent in Par. 18 Page 8 of their REPLY Paper. Therefore, the
respondent accepted the fact that this Honorable Office has full jurisdiction
over this instant case and SMDC is liable for the complainant's money
claims under Article 217 (a) of the Labor Code.(Attached herewith is the
complainant’s front and back scanned copy of Company I.D. as ANNEX
“J” and “J-1”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed that

the foregoing Answer to Respondent’s Reply is given due credence and
consideration and the reliefs prayed for by the Complainant in his Position
Paper be accordingly granted.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Manila City, Philippines, October 24, 2022.

Yen Warren P. Canoy

Complainant
612-E General Geronimo Street
Sampaloc, Manila 1008
Mobile No. 0916-744-1285
Email: mylaw.goodservice@gmail.com

Answer page 16
Copy furnished:

SM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Jose Marie Banzon
Respondents
15th Floor, Tower B, Two E-com Center,
Bay Shore Avenue, Mall of Asia Complex,
Pasay City 1300, Philippines

ALEJANDRO & PARTNERS

Counsels for the Respondents
10th Floor, One E-com Center
Harbour Drive, Mall of Asia Complex
Pasay City 1300, Philippine

Answer page 17
 VERIFICATION
CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM
SHOPPING
I, YEN WARREN P. CANOY, Filipino, of legal age, married, after having been duly
sworn to before the law, do hereby depose and state, that:

1. I am the complainant in the above-entitled

case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the

foregoing Answer and the contents thereof are true
and correct of our knowledge and belief;

3. I have not commenced any other court

action or proceeding involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency; to the best of my knowledge, no
such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other
tribunal or agency;

4. If I should learn thereafter that a similar

action or proceeding has been filed or is pending, I
undertake to report the same fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the
original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein have been filed

___________________________
YEN WARREN P. CANOY

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this ___ day of ____________2022

in the City of ____________________; affiant exhibited to me his competent proof of
identification below his name.

WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. ___;
Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2022

Answer page 18
Answer page 19