legal writing aldrin

ATTY. ROBERT ALDRIN B. ORTIZLaw and Notarial Services

No. 2-23rd Street, East Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City 2200 Phils.Mobile No. 09355312300; Email: [email protected]

04 April 2013 LETTER WRITING ITEM No. 1

MR. JOSE ABUSADO23 Katipunan Ave., Quezon City

Dear Mr. Abusado,

My client, Mrs. Naty Ferrer, owner of a row of apartments in Quezon City, had referred the

matter of instituting the proper complaint for ejectment against you for your failure to pay

your monthly rentals in the amount of P18,000.00 or a total amount of P1,224,000.00 since

August 2007 up to present.

Clause 10(a) of the contract states that the “deposit shall only be refunded one month from

the expiration or termination of the contract of lease, after the lessor shall have ascertained

that all the utility bills chargeable to the tenant have been settled as evidenced by receipts.”

In view thereof, demand is hereby made that you vacate the premises you are presently

occupying together with all persons claiming rights under you, and to pay your rentals-in-

arrears in the total amount of P1,224,000.00 within ten (10) days upon receipt of this

letter.

If you failed to vacate the leased premises and pay the aforementioned amount, I will be

constrained to file the necessary action in court in order to protect the interest of my client.

I hope that you will give this matter your most preferential attention in order to be spared

of expensive, embarrassing and time-consuming litigation.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

ATTY. ROBERT ALDRIN B. ORTIZ

Counsel of Mrs. Naty Ferrer



04 April 2013 LEGAL WRITING ITEM No. 2-A

QRS Corporation, Inc.c/o Atty. Mario Laginggalit28/F The World Centre, 330 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City

To the Managing Directors of QRS Corporations, Inc.,

I am writing as the new retainer counsel of my client, Mr. Joseph Ramos, in regard to the

unsettled payment of QRS Corporation, Inc.’s building construction contract with my client.

The said contract is already 95% to its completion.

In view thereof, demand is hereby made that the corporation is requested to settle the said

outstanding obligation amounting to P2,500,000.00 within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of

this letter. If you failed to pay the aforementioned obligation, I will be constrained to file

the necessary action in court in order to protect the interest of my client.

I hope that you will give this matter your most preferential attention in order to be spared

of expensive, embarrassing and time-consuming litigation.


Very truly yours,


Counsel of Mr. Joseph Ramos



10 April 2013 LEGAL WRITING ITEM No. 2-B

QRS Corporation, Inc.c/o Atty. Mario Laginggalit28/F The World Centre, 330 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City

To the Managing Directors of QRS Corporations, Inc.,

Reference is hereby made to your counter-proposal asking for a 30-day extension, payment

of P700,000.00 and proposal to pay the balance in 36 equal monthly installments.

My client, however, finds your counter-proposal inacceptable and hereby demands

payment of the full amount of P2,500,000.00 within sixty (60) days upon receipt of this

letter.

Please consider this as our last and final demand.


Very truly yours,


Counsel of Mr. Joseph Ramos



04 April 2013 LEGAL WRITING ITEM No. 3

MS. MONINA A. RIVEROLot 80 Blk. 1 Waterdam Rd.Gordon Heights, Olongapo City

Dear Ms. Rivero,

My client, World Cellphone, Inc. – the primary cellular phone service provider in the

Philippines, would like to remind you of your unsettled account for four (4) months

amounting to P3,850.60.

Please settle your balance at any World Cellphone Inc. stores or other accredited payment

facility immediately to avoid suspension of our service. Please also be advised that

applicable termination fees may apply if your account is suspended.

If by chance, payment has been made prior receipt of this letter, please disregard this

reminder and accept our thanks.


Very truly yours,


Counsel for World Cellphone, Inc.

TAN SY CO & ASSOCIATESLaw Firm

6/F Pacific Star Building Makati Ave., Makati City 1227, Phils.Tel: (987) 654-3210; Email: [email protected]




MS. LUCY TENG1612-A Crisostomo St.Sampaloc, Manila

Dear Ms. Teng,

I would like to apologize that I cannot possibly represent you in your case based on your

narration of facts before me.

As your legal counsel and upon studying the merits of the case, your best course of action is

to settle the matter with the victims’ families and pay what they are asking for; or, at the

very least, enter into negotiations to arrive at a settlement in order to be spared of

expensive, embarrassing and time-consuming litigation.

I would highly advise that you consider my aforementioned opinion which would be most

beneficial to your interest.


Very truly yours,





ZEETEEDEE Corporationc/o Atty. Cezar T. AzarAzar & Azar Law Firm10/F Pacific Star Building, Emerald Ave., Pasig City

To the Managing Directors of Zeeteedee Corporation,

I am writing as the legal counsel of my client, Mr. Conrado V. Soliven, regarding his failure

to pay the total amount of P145,000.00. Reference is hereby made to your final demand

letter received by my client.

In lieu of the foregoing, my client is seeking for your consideration to accept his L300

delivery van in payment of his obligation due to my client’s inability to settle the amount in

full.

Please do consider my client’s counter-offer. Your utmost and kind understanding

regarding this matter is highly appreciated


Very truly yours,


Counsel of Mr. Conrado V. Soliven




MR. JOHNNY MATUMAL13 Drapper St. West Tapinac,Olongapo City, Zambales

Dear Mr. Matumal,

This letter is in response to your narration of facts before me about your failed marriage

with Aunt Marsha. For convenience, I took the liberty to include a subject title for each of

my response.

Executing a Written Document:

Assuming that the marriage is valid and both party is a citizen of the Philippines, you and

Aunt Marsha cannot simply execute a written document allowing each other to live

separate lives and marry someone else if they wish for it is not in accordance with the

Family Code of the Philippines. Only a judge in court of law can annul, void, or nullify a

marriage.

For purposes of remarriage, there must be a court order declaring the marriage as null and

void. Entering into a subsequent marriage without such court declaration means that: (a)

the subsequent marriage is void; and (b) the parties open themselves to a possible charge

of bigamy.

Support:

According to Art. 105 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the following are obliged to

support each other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article: (1) The spouses;

(2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants; (3) Parents and their legitimate children and

the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; (4) Parents and their illegitimate

children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; and (5) Legitimate

brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.

Therefore, you are obliged to give support to your family and your only son, Bobby.



Legal Recourse:

Annulment may be your legal recourse if you want to terminate your marriage with Aunt

Marsha, but there are grounds to nullify it by virtue of Art. 45 of the Family Code of the

Philippines.

Declaration of nullity of marriage may also be your legal recourse ONLY IF it may be proven

that such marriage is void or invalid from the beginning. You can also opt to file a

Declaration of Nullity of your marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code of the

Philippines if we can establish that either one of you is psychologically incapacitated to

comply with the essential requisites of marriage.

Pregnancy Outside Marriage:

If it so happen that your girlfriend is pregnant, the status of the child would be illegitimate

due to an absence of a court order declaring your previous marriage with Aunt Marsha

annulled or void.

I hope that my expert legal advice about your circumstance would help you deal with your

current problems in your family life. If you have further questions regarding the matter,

please don’t hesitate to contact me to wherever you find it most convenient.


Very truly yours,




Date: 07 April 2013 LEGAL OPINION

To: MARICAR G. GIMENEZ

Unit 8756 Condominium Towers, E. Rodriguez Ave., Quezon City

Subject: Legal Opinion on the possibility of bringing a lawsuit against three men

committing a crime against you

Dear Ms. Gimenez,

Here is the legal opinion you requested. The facts, gathered from you and your documents,

are as follows:

1. At around 10:30pm of 22 February 2012, the left rear tire of your black Honda CRV

with plate number XKY 232 blew out while on your way home. It appears from your

observation that it had run over something really sharp. You were on a dimly lit area

along C.P. Garcia in Quezon City and there were hardly any cars in sight.

2. You decided to call for help when three men suddenly appeared out of nowhere, and

one of them pointed a gun at you shouting “Bumaba ka dyan!” which made you drop

your phone and obey what they ask of you.

3. You were held at gunpoint and the following valuables are taken:

a. Louis Vuitton Retiro PM bag;

b. Louis Vuitton Retiro PM wallet with cash amounting to P14,500;

c. Credit Cards other Identification Cards;

d. iPhone;

e. Pair of Diamond Earrings;

f. Tennis bracelet; and

g. MacBook Pro.

4. After taking possession of your valuables, the three men dragged you to a nearby

grassy area. The man with the gun hit you several times and raped you while still at

gunpoint to which made you lose consciousness.

5. An old lady woke you up asking of what happened and the next thing you remember

is that you are already in the hospital.



From the foregoing facts, it is apparent that the crime committed is ROBBERY WITH RAPE

which is a special complex crime punishable in paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the Revised

Penal Code with reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, which

reads:

"Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons--

Penalties.--Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or

intimidation of any person shall suffer:

"x x x x x x x x x

"2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion

perpetua, when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or

intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of

the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 or article 263 shall have been

inflicted: Provided, however, That when the robbery accompanied with rape

is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the

penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

"x x x x x x x x x" (Emphasis supplied)

According to the case of People vs Clidoro (G.R. No. 143004), the crime of robbery with

rape is committed when the following elements concur:

(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or

intimidation against persons;

(2) the property taken belongs to another;

(3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and,

(4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.

The issue here is whether or not all the three men are liable as principals in the special

complex crime of robbery with rape.

According to People vs Mendoza (G.R. No. 123186), even if the two of the accused did not

commit the criminal act of rape against Ms. Gimenez, they will still be liable for the special

complex crime of robbery with rape. The conspiracy to rob is all that is needed to be

proven to punish them all as principals in the crime of robbery with rape. The rape may

have been perpetrated by only one of them, but they will all be convicted of robbery with



rape, because the rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a

consequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as

principals of the crime of robbery with rape, although not all of them actually took part in

the rape.[42] It is enough that robbery shall have been accompanied by rape to be

punishable under the The Revised Penal Code which does not differentiate whether the

rape was committed before, during or after the robbery.

Although the narration of facts of Ms. Gimenez, all the three men who took part in the crime

are liable with the complex crime of rape as co-principal even if their participation is very

minimal as when one of the accused acted as guard while rape was being committed on the

occasion of the robbery.

In addition, the penalty must be imposed in the maximum degree, inasmuch as the crime

was committed (1) in disregard of his sex, (2) during nighttime, and (3) in advantage be

taken of superior strength. (Article 14, paragraphs 3, 6 and 15, Revised Penal Code.)

Very truly yours,




KARENINA B. LAGO, Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. ______________FOR: SUPPORT AND DISSOLUTIONOF PROPERTY REGIME with PRAYER FOR PROTECTION ORDERAnd SUPPORT PENDING LITIGATION

DARIUS J. SANTOS, Defendant.

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

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

COMES NOW, plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully submits the foregoing Memorandum for the Plaintiff, to wit:

STATEMENT OF FACTS and CASE:

This is a complaint for SUPPORT and DISSOLUTION OF PROPERTY REGIME filed

by plaintiff Karenina B. Lago against defendant Darius J. Santos under Article 194 and

Article 148 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

The parties lived together without the benefit of marriage in Quezon City where

they begot three children – Coleen in 2003, Cora in 2004, and Carlo in 2009.

That during their relationship, they have acquired the following items:

a. Lot in Alabang Hills in 2003;

b. Second-hand BMW to which defendant later sold;

c. Toyota Innova;

d. Motorcycle in 2006;

e. Several home appliances;

f. Ford Escape with Plate Number ACT 001 in 2012;

g. 100 shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation.

That most of the items acquired during their relationship were acquired mostly from

their pooled funds.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESREGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONBRANCH __________

QUEZON CITY



Prior to their separation in August 2012, the parties have a huge fight and defendant

said hurtful things against the plaintiff and slap her twice in the presence of their children.

Defendant also took away plaintiff’s personal laptop and Canon EOS camera and their 32

inch Bravia flat screen television. Defendant likewise threatened to took away plaintiff’s

new Ford Escape car.

Defendant after their separation did not provide for the support of their children.

Thus, this complaint for Support against the defendant. Plaintiff likewise prays that

their property regime be dissolved and that a Temporary Protection Order be issued

against the defendant in order to restrain the latter in going to plaintiff’s house in order to

avoid further physical and verbal abuse. The Temporary Protection Order be made

permanent.

Defendant on the other hand, claims that during their cohabitation, plaintiff did not

contribute to the household expenses. That the properties they acquired came from his

own funds. Defendant also denies paternity of their three (3) children.

ISSUES

a) Whether or not plaintiff had a valid claim for support and can claim for support

pending litigation.

b) Whether or not the property regime of the parties can be dissolved.

c) Whether or not a Temporary Protection Order/Permanent Protection Order can

be issued against the defendant.

DISCUSSION

a) Whether or not plaintiff had a valid claim for support and can claim for

support pending litigation.

The plaintiff can claim support from the defendant for the sustenance of their three

(3) minor children namely Coleen, Cora and Carlo, all surnamed Santos. Article 194 of the

Family code provide as follows, to wit:



Art. 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance,

dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in

keeping with the financial capacity of the family.

Inasmuch as the defendant is an endocrinologist-internist by profession, he can ably

support the minor children in the amount of P20,000.00 a month or a total of P60,000.00.

Said amount is necessary in order that the children can live comfortably in accordance with

the social standing and financial capacity of the family. The children are all enrolled in

exclusive private schools.

The claim of defendant that the children are not his are immaterial considering that

he had acknowledge paternity of said children in their respective Certificates of Live Birth.

That defendant did not impugn the filiation of the said children in proper court

proceedings. A copy of the children’s Certificates of Live Birth are hereto attached and

made part hereof as Annexes “A”, “B” and “C”.

Plaintiff prays that pending litigation support should be given in order to defray the

expenses of their minor children.

b) Whether or not the property regime of the parties can be dissolved.

It is admitted that the parties had lived together as husband and wife without the

benefit of marriage. That they have acquired properties during their cohabitation, to wit:

a. Lot in Alabang Hills in 2003;

b. Second-hand BMW to which defendant later sold;

c. Toyota Innova;

d. Motorcycle in 2006;

e. Several home appliances;

f. Ford Escape with Plate Number ACT 001 in 2012;

g. 100 shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation.

Although, it can be said that defendant had contributed mostly for the purchase of the

foregoing items, the same were purchase during their cohabitation. The law presumes that

the parties are the co-owners of the said properties. The contribution of the plaintiff, aside

from contributing a small amount, also includes her efforts, consisting of the caring and

maintenance of the family and the household.



c) Whether or not a Temporary Protection Order/Permanent Protection Order

can be issued against the defendant.

That defendant, Darius J. Santos, is very controlling, dominant, verbally abusive mate,

and have a temper problem. Defendant during their cohabitation, had a fight with the

plaintiff to the point that the defendant got himself an armalite in good condition which he

sometimes brandished in front of the plaintiff. Defendant had hit the plaintiff twice prior to

their separation even in front of their children. Plaintiff had already feared for her life and

that of her children who had been traumatized by the incident.

That the Honorable Court should grant a Temporary Protection Order ordering the

defendant to stay away from petitioner and her children at a distance specified by the

court, and to stay away from the residence, school, place of employment, or any specified

place frequented by the defendant and their children and to direct the lawful possession

and use by plaintiff the Ford Escape car, and other essential personal effects, regardless of

ownership.

The defendant inflicted Psychological violence and physical violence and Economic

abuse against the plaintiff.

Republic Act 9262 otherwise 9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women

and Children Act of 2004 defines Psychological Violence and Economic Abuse as follows, to

wit:

"Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or

emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment,

stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and

mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual

or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness

pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted

deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.

"Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially

dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any

legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the

other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in

Article 73 of the Family Code;



2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use

and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;

3. destroying household property;

4. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely control

Defendant had withheld support to their children and likewise threatens to get the new

car being used by the plaintiff.

The aforementioned acts of the defendant violates of the provisions of Republic Act

9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004.

Hence, the issuance of the Temporary Protection Order and ultimately Permanent

Protection Order is proper.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court, that the

foregoing Memorandum for the Plaintiff be NOTED.

Other relief are prayed for.

ROBERT ALDRIN B. ORTIZ

Counsel of for the Plaintiff

No. 2-23rd Street, East Bajac-Bajac

Olongapo City

legal writing aldrin

Documents

mario laginggalit 28

gil puyat ave

revised penal code

san miguel corporation

legal writing item

temporary protection order

support pending litigation

ford escape car