Mary Jean O. Mahilum files a counter affidavit in response to a complaint of cyber libel filed against her by Coelyn O. Junggay. In the counter affidavit, Mahilum argues that the complaint should be dismissed for three reasons: 1) The complaint lacks credibility and evidence for indicting Mahilum of cyber libel; 2) There was no authentication of the alleged libelous statements conducted by the proper authorities; 3) The complaint depicts Mahilum as the predator when Mahilum claims receipts show she made payments to Junggay. Mahilum also files counterclaims seeking moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees from Junggay for filing an unfounded
Mary Jean O. Mahilum files a counter affidavit in response to a complaint of cyber libel filed against her by Coelyn O. Junggay. In the counter affidavit, Mahilum argues that the complaint should be dismissed for three reasons: 1) The complaint lacks credibility and evidence for indicting Mahilum of cyber libel; 2) There was no authentication of the alleged libelous statements conducted by the proper authorities; 3) The complaint depicts Mahilum as the predator when Mahilum claims receipts show she made payments to Junggay. Mahilum also files counterclaims seeking moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees from Junggay for filing an unfounded
Mary Jean O. Mahilum files a counter affidavit in response to a complaint of cyber libel filed against her by Coelyn O. Junggay. In the counter affidavit, Mahilum argues that the complaint should be dismissed for three reasons: 1) The complaint lacks credibility and evidence for indicting Mahilum of cyber libel; 2) There was no authentication of the alleged libelous statements conducted by the proper authorities; 3) The complaint depicts Mahilum as the predator when Mahilum claims receipts show she made payments to Junggay. Mahilum also files counterclaims seeking moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees from Junggay for filing an unfounded
Mary Jean O. Mahilum files a counter affidavit in response to a complaint of cyber libel filed against her by Coelyn O. Junggay. In the counter affidavit, Mahilum argues that the complaint should be dismissed for three reasons: 1) The complaint lacks credibility and evidence for indicting Mahilum of cyber libel; 2) There was no authentication of the alleged libelous statements conducted by the proper authorities; 3) The complaint depicts Mahilum as the predator when Mahilum claims receipts show she made payments to Junggay. Mahilum also files counterclaims seeking moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees from Junggay for filing an unfounded
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE National Prosecution Service OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR Oroquieta City
COELYN O. JUNGGAY NPS NO. X-04-INV-23B-00011
Complainant, FOR: Violation of RA 10175 VS. MARY JEAN O. MAHILUM Respondent. X------------------------------------------------X COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
I, MARY JEAN O. MAHILUM of legal age, Filipino, married, and a
resident of San Vicente, Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental under oath and do hereby depose and state that:
1. The instant complaint should not lend credence for the indictment of the respondent for violation of RA 10175 particularly on the provision on its provision on cyber-libel;
2. Granting the existence of the libelous, vexatious and threatening
words, despite the absence of the authentication conducted by the competent authorities (Cybercrime Department of the PNP), this would not hold water to indict the respondent for the commission of cyber-libel;
3. Complainant through complaint seemed to show that she was the
prey in the situation and the respondent was her predator by depicting and showing screenshots post Paragraph 6 is denied on the ground that there were payments made by the respondent which the receipts thereof are in possession of the complainant. Further, respondent vehemently deny the allegations on repeated demands made by the complaints as respondent never received any demand letter coming from the complainant; 4. Paragraph 7 is denied being mere conclusion of facts; 5. Paragraph 8 and 9 are admitted;
AS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION 6. That this case is prematurely filed for failure of the complaint to demand payment against the respondent and thus the right of action of the complainant has not yet accrue;
1 7. Accordingly, those obliged to deliver or to do somethings incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. 1 10.1 The length of time of the defendants’ occupation over the property as an owner thereof is a good indicia of failure of the plaintiff’s failure to assert his right within a reasonable time; 11. “Under this time-honored doctrine, relief has been denied to litigants who, by sleeping on their rights for unreasonable length of time- either by negligence, folly or inattention-have allowed their claims to become stale. The law aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Verily, laches serves to deprive a party guilty of it to any judicial remedies.” 2
AS COUNTERCLAIMS 10. By reason of this unfounded complaint, Defendants were compelled to engage the services of counsel and incurred the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P 40,000.00) as attorney’s fees, plus Five Thousand Pesos (P 5,000.00) as appearance fee. Another Thirty Thousand Pesos (P 30,000.00) as other litigation expenses; 11. Further, Plaintiffs must be ordered to pay Defendants Moral Damages of One Hundred Thousand (P 100,000.00) pesos and exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P 30,000.00);
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court, to Dismiss the instant complaint for reasons forwarded above.
For filing this utterly baseless suit, defendants pray that the court will grant the counterclaims.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.
October 20, 2022. Oroquieta City for Ozamiz City.
Respectfully submitted. Copy furnished:
Atty. Dan Kirby S. Jumilla
1 Article 1169 of the Civil Code 2 Heirs of Ciprano Reyes et.al vs. Jose Calumpang et.al, G.R. No. 138463, October 30, 2006.
