Republic of the Philippines

PAGE 7

Republic of the PhilippinesREGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8th Judicial Region

BRANCH ____

Tacloban City

SPS. BAYANI BOB MONTECASTRO

CIVIL CASE No. ____________

and HELEN MORENO MONTECASTRO,

FOR:

Plaintiffs,

VIOL. OF ART. 19 & 20 (FAIR

DEALING), ART. 26 (RIGHT TO

PEACE OF MIND), ART. 32

-v e r s u s-

(LIBERTY OF ABODE) AND

ART. 33 (DEFAMATION), of theWILLIAM B. PLACA, SR.,

Civil Code of the Philippines,Barangay Chairman,

and DamagesBrgy. 88, San Jose, Tacloban City

In his official and private capacity,

Defendant.xx----------------------------------------------xx

C O M P L A I N T

PLAINTIFFS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully aver: THAT

I. Plaintiffs SPOUSES BAYANI BOB MONTECASTRO and HELEN MORENO MONTECASTRO are both of legal age, married, and with postal address at Costa Brava, Brgy. 88, San Jose, Tacloban City, where they may be served with court notices; the defendant WILLIAM B. PLACA, SR. is of legal age, Filipino and a resident and at the same time the Barangay Chairman of Brgy. 88 San Jose, Tacloban City, at which place he may be served with summons and notices. Both plaintiffs and defendant have the capacity to sue and to be sued.

2. This case is principally on the abuse of rights based upon the famous maxim: suum jus summa injuria (the abuse of right is the greatest possible wrong).

3. Defendant William B. Placa Sr. is a public official and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; hence, pursuant to Sec. 408(b) of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, this matter is beyond the authority of the Lupon Tagapamaya to bring together the parties for a barangay conciliation proceeding.4. About a year ago, defendant Barangay Chairman William B. Placa Sr. constructed concrete pavement on the barangay road in Costa Brava, Brgy. 88, San Jose, Tacloban City, but stopped building the concrete pavement just in front of plaintiffss driveway, telling them to cement the remaining portion of the road at their own personal expense. It must be remembered that plaintiffs spent their own money for the filling materials laid on this barangay road prior to the construction of concrete pavement. The pictures of the unfinished construction of barangay road concreting are hereto attached. At the background is an unhampered construction of a wall by their neighbors, Sps. Felipe and Erlinda Mailim. (in the first picture), and the finished wall blocking the passage to the seashore (in the rest of the pictures). 5. On February 7, 2005 plaintiff Helen Montecastro made a courtesy call on Mr. Placa to inform him that plaintiffs will proceed to construct the concrete road fronting their driveway at their personal expense, per his previous advice. Defendant said that he will prepare a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) wherein plaintiffs will donate the said work to the barangay, but he warned them not to build a fence, saying: Ayaw la kamo pag-kodal!6. Plaintiffs waited for almost a week but defendant failed to show up with his MOA; the unreasonable delay of his inaction has so much inconvenienced the plaintiffs who are deprived of an access to their driveway since the unfinished construction of the road by the barangay has practically rendered their driveway useless.7. So, at about 8:00 AM of February 12, 2005, plaintiffs decided to hire some masons to lay filling materials on the road in preparation for the concreting of the road, as shown in the pictures hereto attached. 8. Then, at about 11:30 AM of the same date, defendant Placa showed up in front of plaintiffss house, and told their masons to stop working and demanded to see the plaintiffs. When plaintiffs confronted Mr. Placa, he handed to plaintiffs a copy of his MOA, for the plaintiffs to read the unilateral conditions he has prescribed in his MOA, and for them to sign the same.9. When plaintiffs read the conditions, they felt aggrieved and irritated by such conditions because they are going to spend their personal funds for the cement work on the road, then donate it to the barangay, but in return, plaintiffs are being restricted to use it as parking area, stockpiling of sand and gravel, or any material that will obstruct the free flow of passage to and from the seashore or the wharf.

10. Plaintiffs told defendant that they have no quarrel with him on these restrictive conditions, but they likewise showed him a copy of a Notice of Violation from the Tacloban City Engineers Office and reminded him that it was unfair for him to be too strict with them while he was lenient with their neighbor Erlinda Mailim, who erected a concrete wall across the barangay road, permanently blocking the passage to the seashore, and yet he did nothing to stop such illegal construction despite this Notice. 11. Defendant was slighted by this comparison, and then started to malign plaintiff HELEN MONTECASTRO in the presence of her husband plaintiff BAYANI MONTECASTRO, their masons and personal driver, calling her: Buwa-on ka! (youre a liar), and further insulted her, saying: Taga Marabut ka man, uli didto ha Marabut ngan didto kamo pag-ukoy, kay nagsisinamok ka dinhe ha amon barangay! (Youre from Marabut, so go home to Marabut and stay there, because you are a trouble maker in our barangay). Mga ingrato kamo, magmamalahimo ako nga mapaiwas kamo didi nga barangay! (You are ingrates, and I will work for your removal in this barangay). Such oral defamation by defendant is a blatant discourtesy of a public official in the course of his official duty and a constitutional violation of plaintiffs right to peaceful abode under Art. III, Sec. 6 of the 1986 Philippine Constitution. The affidavits of their masons and personal driver will corroborate this fact.12. A few minutes later, defendant arrived at the scene, tagging along some three or four policemen, who confronted plaintiffs about the alleged complaints of Mr. Placa that they employed laborers to construct an illegal fence and concrete road, and that they uttered unsavory remarks against the barangay chairman, who merely requested them to sign a MOA. This complaint of Mr. Placa was entered in the Police Blotter of San Jose PNP as Entry No. 1141, dated 12 February 2005. But he falsified the time of the incident, as it actually happened at about 12:00 noon, and not 2:30 PM as recorded in the police blotter. As a barangay official, he must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance as a barangay official but with respect to his behavior as a private individual.13. Plaintiffs were intimidated by the presence of the policemen tagged along by Mr. Placa to their place; they were also extremely ashamed of the neighborhood, as they felt they were being eyed as criminals. 14. Not contented with this scandalous scene he made against the plaintiffs, the defendant likewise filed another harassing letter-complaint again on February 14, 2005 with the Office of the City Engineer, alleging that there is an illegal construction of concrete fence and concrete road at Costa Brava made by Sps. Helen and Bob Montecastro without securing a permit from him, and ask that the construction be stopped as it may cause an obstruction to the neighborhood.

15. A certain Engr. Gabriana from the City Engineers Office came to inspect the place on that same date, but he did not find anything illegal to stop any on-going construction work, but instead told the plaintiffs to settle the matter amicably with the barangay chairman. However, plaintiffs commented that this is an unfair dealing by the defendant on them and cited as a good example the illegal wall of Erlinda Mailim subject of Notice of Violation by their office which Mr. Placa did not make any protest nor stop the illegal construction inasmuch as it was his duty to do so since it was already declared illegal by the City Engineers Office.

16. Making good with his threat to drive away the plaintiffs from the place, defendant Placa urged his barangay council on the eve of February 12, 2005 to pass a barangay resolution declaring plaintiffs as persona non grata, and submit it to the City DILG office for a possible eviction of the plaintiffs in the neighborhood. But the barangay council decided that the defendant send a summons to the plaintiffs to appear before the barangay council on February 16, 2005 at 9AM, and to explain why they should not be declared as persona non grata. Plaintiffs refused to receive the summons of the defendant, but it certainly vexed and troubled the plaintiffs. The affidavit of Deputy Chief Tanod Losanto Castillo will corroborate this fact.

17. Still not contented with one baseless complaint with the City Engineers Office, he concocted again another complaint on February 15, 2005 and the City Engineer Felix Ripalda was gullible enough to hurriedly make his February 16, 2005 letter of violation to my husband, repleading the complaint of Mr. Placa that aggregates owned by (you) is presently stockpiled along the barangay road adjacent to your house which had totally obstructed the passageway of the same constitutes a violation of existing City Ordinance 98 -08 prohibiting construction and installation of any structure and devices along the streets of the City of Tacloban.

18. On February 17, 2005, my supervising Engr. Florencio Leoncio confronted the rude inspector sent by City Engineer Ripalda, who forced him to receive this letter. But Engr. Leoncio told him to look around and see if there was indeed any stockpile of aggregates made by us, but there was none. Embarrassed, the rude inspector left hastily, but dropped the letter on the ground.

19. On the following day, February 19, 2005 at 11:00 AM, a stockpile of land soil was laid on the other side of the road by our neighbors (Maiim), including some barrels of inflammable diesel. But there was no word of protest from Mr. Placa. We took pictures of this scenario.

20. As we could no longer bear the series of vexation, harassment, oppression and threat and abuse of authority and unfair treatment of Mr. Placa upon us, we sought the assistance of a lawyer to protect our civil rights as well as to file appropriate criminal and administrative charges against this erring public official. Our lawyer said that such nasty scheme is laying a basis for extortion, considering that I and my husband are balikbayans from the USA.

17. As plaintiffs have been vexed, harassed, oppressed and tormented by the series of abuses of their civil rights by defendant Barangay Chairman Placa, they sought the assistance of a lawyer to protect and vindicate their civil rights as well as to file appropriate criminal and administrative charges against this erring public official.18. This fascistic and unfair dealing of defendant on the plaintiffs, taking advantage of his position as Barangay Chairman, has unjustifiably annoyed, vexed, irritated, tormented, disturbed and intimidated the plaintiffs, so much so that they could no longer live at peace in their own house for fear of another unfounded search or inspection, reprisal or arrest by law enforcement groups through the machination of this scheming barangay official, and their liberty of abode threatened by his move to declare them as persona non grata.19. The foregoing acts of defendant, constituting an abuse of the civil rights of plaintiffs in violation of Articles 19 & 20 (fair dealing), Article 26 (right to peace of mind), Article 32 (liberty of abode) and Article 33 (defamation) of the Civil Code of the Philippines, has prejudiced the plaintiffs, who are entitled to moral damages in the amount of not less than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00).

20. In order to vindicate their civil rights and interests violated by the abuses of defendant barangay chairman, plaintiffs were constrained to hire the services of counsel and agreed to pay the acceptance fee of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) and appearance fee of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) and will incur litigation expenses in the amount of not less than TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00).

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiffs, finding the defendant guilty of abuse of right and ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs just and reasonable damages, as follows:1. Moral damages of not less than P100,000.00 2. Attorneys fees of P30,000.00 plus appearance fee of P1,000.00 per hearing;

3. Cost of litigation of not less than P20,000.00

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. February 21, 2005 at Tacloban City.

LEO S. GIRON

Counsel for the Plaintiffs253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City

Roll No. 37979

IBP Lifetime No. 00733

PTR No. 5803034; 1-3-05; Tacloban CityRepublic of the Philippines)

Province of Leyte

) SS

City of Tacloban

)

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, SPOUSES BAYANI BOB MONTECASTRO and HELEN MORENO MONTECASTRO, both of legal age and with post office address at Brgy. 88, Costa Brava, San Jose, Tacloban City, after having been first sworn according to law, hereby state:

We are the plaintiffs in the above-entitled case; We have caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint; We have read it and the allegations therein are true and correct of our own personal knowledge or based on relevant and authentic records.

That We have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim or pleading involving the same or similar issues or subject matter in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, lower courts or administrative bodies and quasi-judicial agency and to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and, if we should thereafter learn hereafter that the same or similar action or claim or pleading has been filed or is pending with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, lower courts, administrative bodies or quasi judicial agency; we shall undertake to report that fact within five (5) days from knowledge thereof to the court wherein this aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

That we shall be filing simultaneously this civil case with a criminal complaint for COERCION under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code against the respondent Barangay Chairman William B. Placa, Sr.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this __________ at Tacloban City, Philippines.

HELEN MORENO MONTECASTRO BAYANI BOB MONTECASTRO Affiant

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________________________ at Tacloban City, Philippines.

Doc.No. ____Page No. ____

Book No. ____

SERIES OF 2005 Jose Arlegui vs. CA, GR No. 126437, March 6, 2000

Annex A Pictures of unfinished barangay road concreting at Costa Brava

Annex B to B-2 Pictures of laying filling materials on the unfinished barangay road concreting

Annex C Notice of Violation issued by City Engineers Office dated 19 March 2004

Annex D Joint Affidavit of Segundino Edara, Aron Abelgas, Niel Escala and Nestor Bulcase

Annex E Affidavit of Leodegario Villegas

Annex F Police Blotter, Entry No. 1141 dated 12 February 2005

Annex G Letter-Complaint dated 14 February 2005

Annex H Affidavit of Losanto Castillo

Annex I Letter of City Engr. Felix Ripalda dated 16 February 2005

Annex J Affidavit of Engr. Florencio Leoncio

Annex K Pictures of stockpile and barrels of diesel by the Mailim