7/27/2019 Answer with affirmative.

1/3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

Branch 1

City of Quezon

MR. MALLY VOGUEPlaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 1-Versus- For: Qualified Theft

MR. ARMANDO BACLAYANDefendant.

x------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIM

NOW COMES, the defendant in the above entitled case, and to this Honorable

Court most respectfully alleges:

1. That the defendant admits the averment in paragraphs 1,2,3,5,6,7,8, and11 of the complaint.

2. That the defendant denies the averment in paragraph 4 of the complaint.3. That the defendant strongly denies that he received the notice

mentioned in paragraph 9 of the complaint.

4.

The defendant denies the allegation of the plaintiff that the ground forthe criminal action filed was the letter acknowledging the mistake sent

by the defendant, as implied in paragraph 11 and 12 of the complaint,

when such letter was sent to the HR department of the corporation after

the first instance of appropriation of the money by the defendant, which

is before his prolonged absence.

7/27/2019 Answer with affirmative.

2/3

Page 2 of3

By way of special and affirmative defenses, defendant avers:

1. That he is in possession of the money and failed to remit the dues.2. That the defendant has no intention of not remitting the money

demanded; and has no intention of abusing the confidence reposed to

him as a sales coordinator of ASSS.

3. That the defendants prolonged absence was due to the fact that he hasto attend to his ailing grandmother in the province, and that the place

was so remote, being 10 kilometers to the nearest town, and to that

effect communication was almost impossible.

4. That the defendant, while in the province ran out of money due to themedical expenses of his ailing grandmother and has to sojourn there for

a while in order to raise money to return to Manila, instead of just using

the company money he is in possession of.

By way of counterclaim, defendant alleges:

1. That by virtue of this unwarranted act initiated by the plaintiff, thedefendant was forced to contract the services of counsel in the sum of

P 20,000.00.

2. That there were no sufficient grounds for termination of due to the factthat he was not given any notice to explain his failure to remit said

money.

7/27/2019 Answer with affirmative.

3/3

Page 3 of3

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed and

Defendant be awarded the amount of P50, 000.00

Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

City of Quezon, Philippines, 13th of July, 2013.

ATTY. JEREKKO A. CADORNA

Attorney for the Defendant

P.T.R. No. 6969 Date & Place of Issue:

January 20, 2013 Manila IBP O.R. No. 7769 Date &

Place of Issue: July 20, 2009 Manila