Poechiz Reply PDF

Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
Manila
POECHIZ CANTEEN INC.,

Complainant,
- versus -
Case No. 05-12817-10
RO-RO ACADEMY,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x
REPLY-AFFIDAVIT
I, Miriam Marcos, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident
of 116 Sampaloc, Manila, Philippines, after first being duly sworn in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:
1. I admit the fact stated in paragraph four of the counteraffidavit, which stated that the cause of the termination of
the contract was because of the omission of PoeChiz to
deliver its payment to Ro-Ro Academy.
2. I am also well-aware that the non-payment of PoeChiz of
its obligations constitutes a valid ground for the
termination of the contract, due to a material breach of
contact. However, I would like to stress the fact that the
default of PoeChiz in its obligations is not enough reason
to warrant the posting of the malicious advisory in front of
the campus gate, for all the students, teachers, school
staff,
and
the
rest
of
the
public
to
see.
Assuming without conceding that Ro-Ro has the right to

terminate the contract, it does not follow that by posting it
thru an advisory, it can put whatever reasons which are
unnecessary to its very intent disregarding the effect on
how the public would interpret it which might prejudice
the reputation of PoeChiz. Clearly, when Ro-Ro posted the
advisory, its intent is not merely to inform the public that
the contract between the parties has been terminated, but
also to stain the reputation of PoeChiz. Again, the purpose
of the advisory was to explain the termination. However,
instead of explaining, it used malicious words which
mislead the public by illustrating PoeChiz as a threat to
their safety and security. It is undeniable on the part of
Ro-Ro that this was done consciously and willfully not
only to degrade but also to put PoeChiz in shame. Clearly,
these are abusive acts in the exercise of Ro-Ros right.
3. To say that the posting of the said advisory was because of
the year-long failure of PoeChiz to settle its obligations
and refusal to vacate the premises of the respondent is
implausible. The posting of the advisory was clearly not
made with good motives, contrary to what the
respondent has said. If it was truly made with good
motives, then the respondent would not have put the
following in the advisory:
PoeChiz has in fact padlocked the canteen

premises and refused to vacate the same.
Rest assured that Ro-Ro is and shall take all
necessary action to ensure that it will regain
full possession of the South Wing of the
Conservatory. Such action of PoeChiz has
endangered the safety and security of our
employees, teachers and students, which RoRo has the utmost duty to uphold at all times.
Rest assured that Ro-Ro shall do all measures
to protect the employees, teachers, and

students from any disturbance or harm
caused
by
PoeChiz
continued
and
unauthorized presence within our campus.
3.1 Hence, if Ro-Ro Academy truly intended to show
good motives on its Advisory, it could have expressed
the information otherwise in a respectful approach
without imputing the reputation of PoeChiz.
4. To refute the claim of Ro-Ro Academy that they were
imbued with good motives when its authorities posted
the said advisory, the following are intended for the close
interpretation of the words and phrases used in the said
advisory:
4.1
POE CHIZ HAS IN FACT PADLOCKED THE
CANTEEN PREMISES AND REFUSED TO VACATE
THE SAME.
To state these in the advisory made it appear that the
complainant was stealing their property, specifically the
south wing of the Conservatory. In our defense,
padlocking is an act which shows protection of ones
property, a normal act contrary to what the respondents
are implying by including it in the advisory. When the
complainant padlocked the canteen premises, the
complainants were not given any notice about the
termination of the contract. Hence, the assumption that
the contract was still in effect.
4.2
SUCH
ACTION
OF
POECHIZ
HAS
ENDANGERED THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR
EMPLOYEES, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTSTO
PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES, TEACHERS, AND
STUDENTS FROM ANY DISTURBANCE OR HARM
CAUSED
BY
POECHIZ
CONTINUED
AND
UNAUTHORIZED PRESENCE WITHIN OUR CAMPUS.
Again, this statement has made the padlocking of the

canteen premises by the complainant seem dangerous
when in fact, its intention was contrary to what has
been implied
The act of padlocking should not be interpreted as a
form of danger to the security of the employees,
teachers, and students considering that there is an ongoing dispute between the parties which are not yet
settled. Instead, Poe-Chiz chose to remain inoperative
until there is a final decision regarding the validity of
the termination of its contract. If anything, the advisory
can be interpreted as a warning.
5. In view of the aforementioned close interpretation of the
advisory, this is a clear manifestation as to why the
company, particularly, the directors, officers, and I felt so
much disgrace and humiliation over the said advisory. It
is undoubtedly clear that the crime committed by the RoRo Academy through posting the said advisory was libel.
CERTIFICATION
I therefore most respectfully pray that criminal information for a
libel case be now filed against Ro-Ro Academy, as there is more than
probable cause for its indictment. I am executing this reply-affidavit to
attest the truth of the foregoing and to support my complaint for libel
case against the respondent.
MIRIAM MARCOS
Affiant
By:
Atty. Jejomar Honasan

Managing Partner, BiHon Law Offices
Counsel for Complainant

Roll No. 41194
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before this 28th of November

2015.
Karen Moreno
Senior Asst. City Prosecutor

Poechiz Reply PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poechiz Reply PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poechiz Reply PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

POECHIZ CANTEEN INC.,

Case No. 05-12817-10

Assuming without conceding that Ro-Ro has the right to

PoeChiz has in fact padlocked the canteen

to protect the employees, teachers, and

Again, this statement has made the padlocking of the

Atty. Jejomar Honasan

Counsel for Complainant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before this 28th of November

You might also like