Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Iloilo City

MARIO A. BRAZAS,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. _______________

versus

ABC Transportation Company,

Defendant,

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

A N S W E R

W I T H

M O T I O N T O D I S M I S S

COMES NOW, the Defendant, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

1. That Defendant ADMITS the averments in paragraph 1 of the complaint with regard to the personal circumstances of both parties.

2. That Defendant ADMITS only that on December 1, 2012, at around 8:30 a.m., along General Luna St., Plaintiff rode in one of the taxis operated by Defendant, as cited in paragraph 2 of the complaint. Defendant specifically DENIES the rest of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint.

3. That Julio Gomez, the driver of said taxi and employee of Defendant, instructed Plaintiff to fasten his seatbelt as Plaintiff was sitting at the front seat with the driver. However, Plaintiff did not heed the driver’s instruction despite a second and third reminder which otherwise could have surely prevented Plaintiff’s injury had he followed such instructions.

4. That prior to having hit the electric post, the driver was compelled by Plaintiff to drive at breakneck speed, in spite of driver’s apprehension, because Plaintiff was in a hurry to catch his flight at the airport.

5. That due to aforesaid compulsion by Plaintiff, the driver, who was at a fast speed at the instance of the Plaintiff, was greatly disturbed and troubled of the Plaintiff’s continuing insistence to drive faster although the taxi was already running at a fast speed. Owing to the Plaintiff’s insistencies, which troubled and disturbed the driver, the untoward incident happened.

6. That “Omnis consensus tollit errorrem” is an age old maxim or legal principle that means “Every consent removes error.” It also means “Consent always removes the

effect of error.” In the instant case, Plaintiff did not just give his consent. Plaintiff was insisting which insisting, caused the bumping of a post.

“Volenti non fit injuria” is also an old-age legal principle that means “He who consents cannot receive an injury.”

In other words, granting that the Plaintiff suffered damages, said damages were through his own fault. ”He who suffers damage through his own fault is not considered as suffering damage” or “He who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to complain”(Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit non intelligitur damnum sentire).

7. That there was not a single bystander in sight and, in fact, nobody helped during the accident.

8. That the prayer for reimbursement for all hospital expenses and to Plaintiff’s salary for one week cannot, by any stretch of one’s imagination, be more than the amount of ₱ 300,000.00, which amount is under the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC).

9. That Defendant, through counsel, moves for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action which is capable of pecuniary estimation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiff.

Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

City of Iloilo, Philippines, February 25, 2012.

By:

Counsel for the Defense12 Washington Street,Jaro, Iloilo City