Memorandum.bcc vs. Mib

8/13/2019 Memorandum.bcc vs. Mib

1/27

Republic of the PhilippinesREGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial RegionBaguio City

HON. CLIFTON U. GANAYSC-Designated Judge

BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUBCORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No !"#$-R

MULTINATIONAL INVESTMENTBANCORPORATION, RAMON K.ILUSORIO, FELIX ADELFO LOPEZand ROMEO RODRIGUEZ ,

Defendants%-----------------------------------------------------------%

M E M O R A N D U M(For the Defendants)

&'() *++ D R SP C( (. () ).N.R*B+ C. R(

./ N.& the defendants, by the undersigned counsel, unto the

)onorable Court, 0ost respectfully sub0it their / /.R*ND / in the

above-entitled case, and for this purpose state1

C IPREFATORY TATEMENT(his is 2ust one of at least four 345 cases involving Penthouse 6 of the Baguio

Country Club Corporation 7hich 7as leased to defendant Ra0on 8 'lusorio 3R8'5 by

the plaintiff for a period of 9! years fro0 July :, 6$$4 *nd all the cases 7ere initiated

0ore than five 3!5 years fro0 the ti0e said unit 7as leased to hi0 and had been used by

hi0, his friends and business associates 7ith the ;no7ledge and consent of the plaintiff

Curiously, the cases 7ere filed only after the 'lusorio Fa0ily Feud started, specifically,


2/27


3/27

0ore than P "" / in cash 7ere raised for its disposal )ence, it has no7 ne7 buildings

and 7orld class facilities but unfortunately, part of the said a0ount is no7 being used to

fight /'B?

Fourth, the plaintiff li;e7ise filed a P9/ plus collection suit against R8' to

allegedly collect the a0ounts due for the use of Penthouse 6 by his friends and business

associates since the plaintiff is no7 clai0ing that he should have been the only one,

together 7ith the i00ediate 0e0bers of his fa0ily, 7ho could 0a;e use of the sa0e

7ithout charge Eet, they allo7ed his business associates and friends to use Penthouse 6

through his letters of authori ation 7ithout any uestion 7hatsoever and 7ithout 0a;ingany billing for the use of Penthouse 6 for 0ore than five 3!5 years---7hich sho7s that no

less than the plaintiff consented to said arrange0ent since R8' 7as single and his parents

have also their o7n penthouse unit to use 't 7as only 7hen the 'lusorio Fa0ily feud

bro;e out and his estranged siblings 7ere the ones sitting as 0e0bers of the Board of the

plaintiff that the plaintiff suddenly de0anded pay0ent for the use of Penthouse 6 by

others outside R8' and the i00ediate 0e0ber of his fa0ily but only after 0ore than five

3!5 years?

.bviously, this is a clear and un0ista;able harass0ent suit brought against R8'

by his estranged siblings using the plaintiff as a front

(his, in a nutshell, is the su00ary of the case at bar

''

THE PLAINTIFF! ALLEGED CAU E OF ACTION

(he plaintiffAs causes of action as enu0erated in its Co0plaint are as follo7s, to

7it1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(he plaintiff is suing the defendants for =actual da0ages by 7ay of actually

unreali ed receipts in the a0ount of at least FOUR MILLION PESOS

(P4,000,000.00 5, e%cluding interest, consisting of the difference bet7een the prices

3


4/27

per s uare 0eter of the units sold on Nove0ber , 6$$# and the highest bid during the

/arch 6G, 6$$4 bidding =

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

T O !UNDRED T!OUSAND PESOS (P"00,000.00 5 by 7ay of 0oral da0ages

due to the


5/27

F*C( *+ *ND J S('F'*B+ @R. NDS 'N S PP.R( () R .F *ND

C)*R*C( R'H D BE @R.SS *ND I'D N( B*D F*'() *ND /*+'C

SECOND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM OFDEFENDANT MULTINATIONAL INVESTMENTBANCORPORATION

*s a conse uence of the filing of the instant case &'(). ( *NE F*C( *+

*ND J S('F'*B+ @R. NDS 'N S PP.R( () R .F *ND C)*R*C( R'H D

BE @R.SS *ND I'D N( B*D F*'() *ND /*+'C , /'B 7as constrained to

engage the services of counsel in the a0ount of FIVE !UNDRED T!OUSAND

(P%00,000.00$ PESOS BY AY OF ATTORNEY&S FEES

B

FIRST COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM OFDEFENDANT RAMON K. ILUSORIO



BE @R.SS *ND I'D N( B*D F*'() *ND /*+'C , R*/.N 8 '+ S.R'.

S FF R D /.R*+ D*/*@ S C.NS'S('N@ 'N / N(*+ *N@ 'S),

S+ P+ SS N'@)(S, *N ' (E, ) /'+'*('.N, B S/'RC) D R P (*('.N,

*ND () +'8 , &)'C), C.NS'D R'N@ )'S PR.F SS'.N*+ *ND S.C'*+

S(*ND'N@ 'S R *S.N*B+E S('/*( D 'N () */. N( .F ONE

!UNDRED MILLION (P#00,000,000.00$ PESOS BY AY OF MORAL

DAMAGES

SECOND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM OF

RAMON K. ILUSORIO



BE @R.SS *ND I'D N( B*D F*'() *ND /*+'C , R*/.N 8 '+ S.R'.

)*S B N C.NS(R*'N D (. N@*@ () S RI'C S .F C. NS + 'N ()

5


6/27

*@R D */. N( .F FIVE !UNDRED T!OUSAND (P%00,000.00$ PESOS BE

&*E .F *((.RN EAS F S *ND (. 'NC R P NS S .F +'('@*('.N *S

PR.I N D R'N@ () (R'*+

C

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM OFDEFENDANTS ADELFO LOPEZ AND ROMEORODRIGUEZ



BE @R.SS *ND I'D N( B*D F*'() *ND /*+'C , D F ND*N(S *D +F.

+.P H *ND R./ . R.DR'@ H )*I B N C.NS(R*'N D (. N@*@

() S RI'C S .F C. NS + 'N () */. N( .F FIVE !UNDRED

T!OUSAND (P%00,000.00$ PESOS BY AY OF ATTORNEY&S FEES *ND

P NS S .F +'('@*('.N

'I

D I C U I O N (Of the P"a#nt#ff!s $a%ses of a$t#on and

defendants! defenses and $o%nter$"a#&s)

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(he plaintiff is suing the defendants for=actual da0ages by 7ay of actuallyunreali ed receipts in the a0ount of at leastF. R /'++'.N P S.S 3P4,""",""" ""5,e%cluding interest, consisting of thedifference bet7een the prices per s uare0eter of the units sold on Nove0ber , 6$$#and the highest bid during the /arch 6G,6$$4 bidding =

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(&. ) NDR D (). S*ND P S.S3P9"",""" ""5 by 7ay of 0oral da0ages dueto the


7/27

in bidding out the three 3#5 penthouse unitson Nove0ber , 6$$#

T!IRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(&. ) NDR D (). S*ND P S.S3P9"",""" ""5 by 7ay of e%e0plaryda0ages due to the


8/27

6 6G9 "" P#9,4!9 "" MP!,$" ,9 4 ""9 9#! "# P#9,4!9 "" MP:, 9:,6$# !

9"# $9 P#9,4!9 "" MP , 6:, 66 G4

Based on the above co0parison, he concluded that there 7as a loss on the part of

BCC, as follo7s1

Penthouse %pected SellingPrice based onhighest bid on/arch 6G, 6$$4 vs

*ctual SellingPrice on Nove0ber, 6$$#

D/--' 'n8'

6 P!,$" ,9 4 ""- P4,G"","" ""

P#,#05,"54.00

9 P:, 9:,6$# ! -P ,!":,""" ""

P#,5"0,#67.%5

P!,#"6,$9" ""-P!,#"6,$9" ""

P#,7#%,56#.94

*lleged (otal +ossof BCC

P4,04",#46.40

(here is no dispute, ho7ever, that said 7itness 0ade the follo7ing ad0issions

during his cross-e%a0ination1

6 (hat based on the /inutes of the Board /eeting of the Board of Directors on

*ugust 4, 6$$#, they set the 0ini0u0 price per s uare 0eter of the

penthouses to be sold on Nove0ber , 6$$# at P9!,""" "" per s uare 0eter

9 (hat in the said Board /eeting, the said public auction sale 7ill be

disse0inated to the 0e0bers starting *ugust 6!, 6$$# up to Nove0ber ,

6$$# .R * P R'.D .F *+/.S( ()R 3#5 /.N()S

# (hat the bidding is open to all the 0e0bers and there 7as there 7as no

prohibition 7hatsoever for defendant R*/.N 8 '+ S.R'. 3R8'5 to participate in the bidding since he is also a 0e0ber

4 (hat the Nove0ber , 6$$# bidding 7as attended by t7o 395 senior partners of

JC Cunanan K Co0pany, the e%ternal auditors of BCC in 6$$#

8


9/27

! (hat on Nove0ber G, 6$$#, JC Cunanan K Co0pany 7rote BCC infor0ing it

of the result of the Nove0ber , 6$$# bidding and it even declared that the

bidding 7as in accordance 7ith the re uire0ents set by the Board 'n the said

letter, Raul Baria 7as 0ade to appear by JC C N*N*N K Co0pany as the

representative of BCC 7hich the latter vigorously denies and even clai0ed

that he is the driver andLor e0ployee of R8'

(hat the BCC never uestioned the said letter of JCC for : O years

: (he BCC approved the *ssign0ent of Penthouse 6 to *delfo +ope in /ay,

6$$4 or S' 3 5 /.N()S *F( R () N.I /B R , 6$$# B'DD'N@ G (hat BCC through the @eneral /anager approved the assign0ent of

Penthouse 6 fro0 +ope to R8' in July, 6$$4

$ (hat BCC allo7ed R8' to 0a;e use of said Penthouse 6, for hi0self, friends

and relatives for 0ore than years 7ithout any uestion as to the legality of

the assign0ent to hi0 or the results of the Nove0ber , 6$$# bidding

6" (hat for the /arch 6G, 6$$4 bidding, only #" days to disse0inate the sa0e to

the 0e0bers based fro0 the February, 6$$4 Board /eeting of BCC 7hile in

the Nove0ber 6$$# bidding, at least $"- day notice 7ere given to the

0e0bers

66 (hat no7here fro0 the records of BCC could 7e find any co0plaint fro0

0e0bers regarding the Nove0ber, 6$$# bidding, particularly on the issue that

they 7ere not notified

69 (hat no7here for0 the records of the Board could 7e find any ob2ection as

regards the procedure that 7as follo7ed and the results of the Nove0ber,

6$$# bidding

6# (hat based fro0 the letter of the @eneral /anager of BCC to /'B 3SIP

Petronilo Carreon5, it is clear that the 0e0bers 7ere notified of the Nove0ber

, 6$$# bidding but so0e of the0 clai0ed that


10/27

steep=,


11/27

7hich severely da0aged the roads going to Baguio City, especially 8ennon

Road

(he line of argu0ent of the plaintiff that it lost an e%pected profit of at least

P4,""",""" "" because the price for the units during the Nove0ber , 6$$ bidding

failed to reach P#9,4!9 "" per s uare 0eter 7hich 7as the highest bid during the /arch

6G, 6$$4 bidding is grossly speculative and has no logic 7hatsoever (he plaintiff 7ants

that each of the fourteen 3645 penthouses should be leased at P#9,4!9 "" per s uare

0eter .ther7ise, there is a loss 't is very absurd, to say the least, especially if 7e are

tal;ing of a bidding 7here each unit is different fro0 the other in ter0s of location and

area

'f 7e follo7 the sa0e line of argu0ent, the losses incurred by the plaintiff during

the /arch 6G, 6$$4 bidding, despite co0plete notices 7ere allegedly sent to all the

0e0bers, 7ould even be 0ore than that of the Nove0ber , 6$$# bidding

'f 7e consider the highest bid on /arch 6G, 6$$4 in the a0ount of P#9, 4!9 ""

per s uare 0eter as the only supposedly acceptable bid in the Nove0ber , 6$$#

bidding, then BCC suffered a bigger loss during the /arch 6G, 6$$4 bidding as sho7n

belo71

MARC! #9, #664 BIDDING

Penthouse *rea3s 0 5

Bid PriceLs 0 Difference fro0P#9,4!9 ""Ls 0

+oss of BCC based on thehighest bid

# 9#! "# P#",4!4 "" P6,$$G "" P4 $,!G$ $44 :9 4! P9 ,994 "" P ,99G "" P4!6,96G "D 6: 9 P9$,""9 "" P#,4!" "" P "G,"$: ""

99: $9 P9G, "" "" P#,G!9 "" PG::,$4: G9@ :4 4" P9G,:!" "" P#,:"9 "" P9:!,49G G"! :9 4! P9$,9" "" P#,94 "" P9#!,6:9 :": 6!6 P9$,9" "" P#,94 "" P4$",64 ""

* 6!9 :# P9$,9": "" P#,94! "" P4$!, "G G!F 6: 9 P#6,""" "" P6,4!9 "" P9!!,$9$ !9

TOTALLOSS

P4,#%6,#76.#0

(he defendants pray to the )onorable Court to 0inutely observe that the bid for

Penthouse 4 during the /arch 6G, 6$$4 bidding in the a0ount of P9 ,""" "" per s uare

11


12/27

0eter by *rch Jose /anosa, the Contractor of BCC then, is even 0uch 0uch lo7er than

the bid for Penthouse 6 by R8' 7hich 7as P9 ,#:# "" per s uare 0eter

Clearly, therefore, the bidding on Nove0ber , 6$$# 7as done in accordance 7ith

the rules and procedure approved by the Board 'f ever the average price per s uare 0eter

during the Nove0ber , 6$$# bidding 7as slightly lo7er than that of /arch 6G, 6$$4, it

7as e%plained by the defendants that during the first bidding, unfavorable 7eather

condition 7as prevailing, not to 0ention the fact that at that ti0e, the penthouse units

7ere unattractive since it 7as bare )o7ever, during the /arch 6G, 6$$4 bidding, the

elevator is already operational and 0ost of the facilities 7ere already in place4

T!E CLAIM OF T!E PLAINTIFFT!AT T!ERE AS NO NOTICE TOT!E MEMBERS FOR T!ENOVEMBER 5, #667 BIDDING ISFALSE

No less than the President, Corporate Secretary and (reasurer of the plaintiff

0ade the instruction to defendant /ultinational 'nvest0ent Bancorporation to conduct

the first bidding 3for the : penthouses on the &est &ing5 on Nove0ber , 6$$# ! 't also

provides that all 0e0bers in good standing shall be ualified to participate in the bidding

7here the 0ini0u0 bid price per s uare 0eter shall be P9!,""" ""

*side fro0 that, no less than %hibit


13/27

But the 0ore telling argu0ent is the fact that not a single stoc;holder or 0e0ber

of the Baguio Country Club Corporation ever raised the issue that he or she 7as never

notified of the t7o 395 biddings and as such, uestions the results thereof Please ta;e

note that as a corporation 7hich raised a very large a0ount of 0oney and invested it for

its infrastructure after its original buildings 7ere da0aged by earth ua;e and fire, said

long ter0 lease of the penthouses should have been reported to the stoc;holders and

0e0bers during its *nnual Stoc;holders /eeting, either in the year 6$$# or 6$$4 Eet,

there 7as nothing in the records of the corporation could 7e find any ob2ection nor

co00ent of the said 0e0bers about their not being notified of the biddings (his fact7as grudgingly ad0itted by plaintiffAs @eneral /anager

T!E PLAINTIFF IS ESTOPPED FROM:UESTIONING T!E LEASE OFPENT!OUSE # TO RAMON K.ILUSORIO AS ELL AS T!EAMOUNT OF BID IN T!E AMOUNT

OF P"5,757 PER S:UARE METER.

't 7as never denied by the plaintiff that defendant /'B 0erely reco00ends to the

plaintiffAs Board of Directors and %ecutive Co00ittee courses of actions to be done in

connection 7ith the rehabilitation of the Baguio Country Club Corporation (he sa0e is

true in connection 7ith the rules and regulations in connection 7ith the bidding of

Penthouses 6 up to 64 a7arding of said penthouses e%ecution of Deeds of *ssign0ent

of said penthouses, and the li;e

*ll the reco00endations of /'B 7ere e%tensively discussed by the Board of

Directors of the plaintiff and 7as a7are and in full control of all stages in the process in

connection 7ith the long ter0 lease of the penthouses 'n fact, the Board of Directors of

the plaintiff 7as fully a7are of the entire process and too; plenty of ti0e to 0a;e the

a7ard itself as 7ell as the e%ecution of the corresponding Deeds of *ssign0ent to the

7inning bidders, including that of defendant R*/.N 8 '+ S.R'. through his

representative, F +' *D +F. +.P H Please consider the follo7ing1

13


14/27

6 *s early as Nove0ber G, 6$$#, J.* 'N C N*N*N K C./P*NE G, the

%ternal *uditor of the plaintiff infor0ed the plaintiffAs Board of Directors

through its Board /e0ber, Corporate Secretary and (reasurer, in the person

of rnesto Sanche , the results of the bidding on Nove0ber , 6$$# and even

infor0ed the plaintiff of the people present during said bidding and that the

14


15/27

& R D +E N.('F' D .F () B'DD'N@ SC) D + D .N

N.I /B R , 6$$# B ( I RE F & *(( ND D () PR -B'DD'N@

C.NF R NC ) +D *( () C*S'N. SP*N.+ 3Please see %hibit


16/27

() C ('I C.//'(( &*S I R PR S N( D (. S).&

()*( R8' &*S B*RR D 'NS( *D, P' / R +E S*'D ) *ND

R*/.N 8 '+ S.R'. &'++ &.R8 .N () 'R R SP C('I S'D S

.F () F NC &*S ()*( / *N( (. C.NI E ()*( ) *ND

R*/.N *R N.( S PP.S D (. J.'N () B'DD'N@> N., B C* S

P' I N & N( .N (. S CC SSF ++E B'D F.R (&. 395

P N(). S N'(S, P N(). S S


17/27

controlled and held by the Board of Directors 64 .ne of the functions of the Board of

Directors is to fi% policies on e%pansion of the business, capital changes and the li;e 6!

(he issue regarding the a7ard of Penthouse 6 7as 0ade in 6$$4 and 7as

uestioned only on Septe0ber 6", 9""6 or after a period of 0ore than seven 3:5 years

ven assu0ing for the sa;e of argu0ent that the 0e0bers of the Board then, 7hich

included Senator Jo;er *rroyo and the President of Baguio Country Club then, *((E

P.( NC'*N. '+ S.R'., e%ceeded their po7ers in approving the a7ard or

assign0ent of Penthouse 6 to Ra0on 8 'lusorio, the sa0e cannot be uestioned no7

because the plaintiff should have PR./P(+E disaffir0ed the contract or act not toallo7 the other party or third persons to act in the belief that the Board 7as authori ed or

that the contract has been ratified 'f it ac uiesces, 7ith the ;no7ledge of the facts, or it

fails to disaffir0 pro0ptly, a ratification 7ill be i0plied, or else it 7ill be estopped to

deny ratification 6 * private corporation by accepting and retaining the fruits or benefits

of an unauthori ed contract or other transaction 0ade or entered into by one its officers is

considered to have ratified it and 7ill be estopped to deny its validity and binding

effect 6:

't 7ould be unbelievable for the plaintiff to clai0 that the 0e0bers of the Board

of Baguio Country Club Corporation in 6$$4 are not a7are that 365 Ra0on 8 'lusorio is

the Chair0an of /'B, its Financial *dvisor and 395 Feli% *delfo +ope is a close

associate and Partner of R8' at /ultinational *s such, it is no7 estopped fro0

uestioning the a7ard and assign0ent of Penthouse 6 to defendant Ra0on 8 'lusorio at

this ti0e or 0ore than seven 3:5 years fro0 the ti0e 7hen an obviously valid corporate

act 7as perfor0ed by its Board of Directors .r 7ould the plaintiff no7 7ants to reverse

the BoardAs action in 6$$4 after 0ore than seven 3:5 years> Could that be done after

0a;ing use of the fruits of said transaction>

T!E PRESENT COMPLAINT ISBARRED BY PRESCRIPTION ANDLAC!ES

64 Please see Section 9# of the Corporation Code of the Philippines6! Ballantine, page 69", cited in C.// RC'*+ +*&S .F () P)'+'PP'N S, Iolu0e #, *@B*E*N',*guedo F , 6$$ dition, page 99#6 9 Fletcher, G64-G6!, citing nu0erous cases6: ) ) *C8.C8 C. IS N+ , July #6, 6$!4, !" @ 3No $5 49##

17


18/27

(here is no dispute that the Bidding involving Penthouse 6 too; place on

Nove0ber , 6$$# 7hile the Deed of *ssign0ent in favor of Feli% *delfo +ope 7as

e%ecuted on /ay 9, 6$$4 .n the other hand, the Deed of *ssign0ent in favor of

defendant Ra0on 8 'lusorio 7as e%ecuted on July :, 6$$4

(he present case 7as filed before the Regional (rial Court of Baguio City only in

Septe0ber of 9""6 or al0ost eight 3G5 years fro0 the ti0e the bidding of Penthouse 6

too; place or 0ore than seven 3:5 years fro0 the ti0e the Deeds of *ssign0ent 7ere

e%ecuted By the ti0e the instant case 7as instituted, the plaintiff had allo7ed defendantRa0on 8 'lusorio , his friends, and business associates the use of Penthouse 6 for not

less than four 345 years starting fro0 6$$4 Clearly therefore, this case is already barred

by prescription

Prescription is rightly regarded as a statute of repose7hose ob2ect is to suppress fraudulent and stale clai0sfro0 springing up at great distances of ti0e and surprisingthe parties or their representatives 7hen the facts have

beco0e obscure fro0 the lapse of ti0e or the defective0e0ory or death or re0oval of 7itnesses 3!# C J S $"#cited in S/na n 1 . S n #9$.

Prescription is rightly regarded as astatute of repose 7hose ob2ect is to suppressfraudulent and stale clai0s fro0 springing up atgreat distances of ti0e and surprising the parties ortheir representatives 7hen the facts have beco0eobscure fro0 the lapse of ti0e or the defective0e0ory or death or re0oval of 7itnesses (53C.J.S. 903 cited in Sinaon vs. Sorogon 19 ).

ven assu0ing 7ithout ad0itting that prescription has not set in to bar the clai0s

of the plaintiffs, clearly, laches has set in

M ' 1' , + ' *a; < +'8+ + ' ; a '1/ /*an+ - + '/ / + . UNDUE DELAY IN T!EENFORCEMENT OF A RIG!T ISSTRONGLY INDICATIVE OF A LACK OFMERIT IN T!E CLAIM SINCE IT IS !UMANNATURE FOR PERSONS TO ASSERT T!EIRRIG!TS MOST VIGOROUSLY !ENT!REATENED OR INVADED ( Salao vs. Salao,70 SCRA 65, cited in G !"A#$S %S. &'$

6G 6# SCR* 4":6$ 6# SCR* 4":

18


19/27

!&$R $* A&$ A++$##A&$ C R&, -0 SCRA 106)

'n :UINSAY VS. IAC, #64 SCRA "59, the Supre0e Court held that1

Considerable delay in asserting one s right before a court of 2ustice is strongly persuasive of thelac; of 0erit of one s clai0

+i;e7ise, the case of ARRADAZA VS. CA, #=0 SCRA #" is applicable

(hus1

S)8 n' */ 'n8' -a/*) ' ;a an+ + 'a )2 ;' ' n + 'n+/+*'d + a ' +/+ and + ) , a8?)/' 8'd /n /+ (Pan ad/* 1. CFI -C +a3a+ , ##5 SCRA 7%7 (#69"$.

.r as held in Vda. d' A*3' + 1 . C ) + - A


20/27

'n the recent case of Ba +a 1 . C ) + -A


21/27

6 %hibit


22/27

Please note that in the bidding of Penthouses, /'B 7as 2ust tas;ed 7ith the

ac uisition or raising the a0ount of P!:/ for the plaintiff During the sa0e period 9" ,

ho7ever, defendant /'B 7as able to raise P!B for its other clients 96, as follo7s1

a P #G,""",""" "" for J@ Su00it of the John @o;ong7ei @roup

b P "",""",""" "" for S/C

c PG::,""",""" "" for Filinvest +and

d P!"",""",""" "" for Coca Cola Bottling Co0pany

e P!9!,""",""" "" for Iictorias /illing Corporation and

f P6 4 B for Benpres CorporationEet, the plaintiff clai0s to have been deprived of at least P4/ due to the

unprofessional conduct of defendant /'B---a clai0 7hich is belied by the evidence of

the defendants 7hich even e0anated fro0 the plaintiff li;e the /inutes of the /eetings

of the Board of Directors of the Club

MULTINATIONAL INVESTMENTBANCORPORATION IS ENTITLEDTO MORAL DAMAGES ANDATTORNEY&S FEES FROM T!EPLAINTIFF AS A RESULT OF T!ISOBVIOUSLY BASELESS AND!ARASSMENT SUIT.

(he plaintiff sued defendant /'B for having allegedly violated the


23/27

T!E MULTINATIONAL GROUPS INVESTMENTBANKING PRO ECTS " "

Co0pany 'nvolved *ctivity nderta;en by /'B *0ounts 'nvolved/etro Drug, 'nc Public offering of co00on

shares

P#,$"",""",""" ""

S7ift Foods, 'nc Public offering of shares P9,$"",""",""" ""Filinvest +and Public offering of shares P6,$"",""",""" ""/usic Se0icon, 'nc Public offering of co00on

sharesP6,$"",""",""" ""

rban Corporation RealtyDevelopers, 'nc

Public offering of co00onshares

P6,G# ,""",""" ""

P+D( Public offering of Co00onstoc;s

P#,G"",""",""" ""

'onics Circuits, 'nc Public offering of co00onshares

P9, "",""",""" ""

Bulletin PublishingCo0pany


P9,!$$,""",""" ""

C K P )o0es Public offering of co00onshares

P!,!"",""",""" ""

uitable Ban;ingCorporation


P9,!"",""",""" ""

Cebu )oldings Public offering of co00onstoc;s

P6,!"",""",""" ""

Central Ban; of thePhilippines

'0ple0entation of DebtReduction Progra0

P6,4 ",""",""" ""

J@ Su00it Public offering of shares P4,#"",""",""" ""

PS Ban; Co00on share offering P#,#"",""",""" ""San /iguel Corporation +ong (er0 Co00ercial

issueP6,#"",""",""" ""

*las;a /il; Corporation Public offering of co00onshares

P9,9:!,""",""" ""

Iictorias /illingCorporation

Public offering of co00onstoc;s

P9,9#",""",""" ""

Coca Cola BottlingCo0pany

+ong (er0 co00ercialissue

P:,9"",""",""" ""

Davao nion Ce0entCorporation

+ong (er0 Co00ercialPaper issue

P4,9"",""",""" ""

)i Ce0ent Corporation +ong (er0 Co00ercialPaper issue

P4,9"",""",""" ""

Science Par; of the Phils ,'nc


P6,9"",""",""" """

Bacnotan Consolidated'ndustries, 'nc

'nvest0ent Ban;er for longter0 loan

P6,9"",""",""" ""

0pire ast +andholdings,'nc


P6,9"",""",""" ""

Deutsche Ban; K RCBC *dvisor K /anager, # rd (ranche

P9,69G,:G9,6"" """

)o0e @uarantyCorporation

Bond .ffering P9,6"",""",""" ""

P+D( Public .ffering ofCu0ulative, non-convertible stoc;s

P6,6"",""",""" ""

Selecta Dairy Products, 'nc Co00on share publicoffering

P6,6"",""",""" ""

ni7ide )oldings, 'nc Public offering of co00onshares

P:"4,4 ",94" ""

99 Please see %hibit


24/27

Fil- state +and, 'nc Public offering of co00onshares

P$"9,""",""" ""

Filinvest Corporation Public offering of co00onshares

P$"",""",""" ""

* Soriano Corporation +ong (er0 Co00ercial

Paper issue

PG::,""",""" ""

nion Ban; of thePhilippines

Co00on share publicoffering

PG"",""",""" ""

Bacnotan Consolidated'ndustries, 'nc

+ong (er0 Co00ercialPaper issue

PG"",""",""" ""

Solid @roup, 'nc Public offering of co00onshares

P:!",""",""" ""

D'@'( + Public offering of co00onshares

P:#",""",""" ""

)i-Ce0ent Corporation Public offering of co00onshares

P:,""",""",""" ""

*yala +and, 'nc Convertible +ong (er0Co00ercial issue

P :,""",""" ""

*lsons Ce0ent Corporation Public offering of co00onshares

P ",""",""" ""

niversal RobinaCorporation


P #G,""",""" ""

/anila lectric Co0pany Class * and B co00onstoc; offering

P "9,""",""" ""

*yala +and, 'nc Class * and B Co00onstoc;s offering

P "",""",""" ""

&illia0 +ines, 'nc Public offering of shares P!#6,""",""",""

S/ Pri0e )oldings, 'nc Do0estic offering ofco00on shares

P!9!,""",""" ""

Philippine National Ban; Second Public .ffering ofco00on shares

P!"",""",""" ""

D/C' )oldings, 'nc Public offering of co00onshares

P!"",""",""" ""

*boiti uity Ientures,'nc


P!"",""",""" ""

Banco de .ro Public offering of co00onshares

P!"",""",""" ""

First Philippine )oldings,'nc

+ong (er0 Co00ercialPaper 'ssue

P!",""",""" ""

Prudential Ban; Pri0ary preferred stoc;s public offering

P!,""",""",""" ""

Prudential Ban; Preferred shares issuance P!,""",""",""" ""P'+( + Public offering of co00on

sharesP4"",""",""" ""

PNB Public offering of co00onshares, # rd (ranche

P4"",""",""" ""

Philippine National Ban; Public offering of co00onshares of stoc;s

P#!",""",""" ""

Security Ban; Public offering of co00onshares

P#!",""",""" ""

Benpres Corporation Co00on share publicoffering

P#"",""",""" ""

+a (ondena, 'nc Co00on shares publicoffering

P#,""",""",""" ""

San /iguel Corporation +ong (er0 Co00ercialPaper 'ssue Series


25/27

'ssueSoutheast *sia Ce0ent)oldings, 'nc


P9,""",""",""" ""

Fortune Ce0entCorporation


P6!",""",""" ""

Iitarich Corporation Public offering of co00onshares P6!",""",""" ""

P+D( Series


26/27

Considering the said baseless accusation of the plaintiff 7hich severely da0aged

and tarnished its reputation, defendant /'B should be co0pensated in the a0ount of not

less than P6""/ by 7ay of 0oral da0ages and P!"",""" "" by 7ay of attorneyAs fees

for forcing it to litigate

RAMON K. ILUSORIO, ROMEORODRIGUEZ AND ADELFO LOPEZARE LIKE ISE ENTITLED TO ANA ARD OF MORAL DAMAGES.

(he social and business standing of defendant Ra0on 8 'lusorio is undeniable

)is record in business is unassailable )e 7as a recipient of at least thirty nine 3#$5

Professional *7ards, citations and Recognitions not only fro0 the Philippines but other

countries, including the


27/27

GACAYAN PAREDE AGMATA 'A OCIATE LA OFFICE

66-B rbano St , Baguio City

by1

LAURO D. GACAYANRoll No #4##G, June #, 6$G

'BP . R No "64$ , February #, 9""4Baguio City

P(R No 669#4G:, February #, 9""4Baguio City

E P L A N A T I O N3Re1 Section 66, Rule 6# of the 6$$: Rules of Civil Procedure5

T ' / /na* 8 - + /

Documents

Memorandum.bcc vs. Mib