Case summary:

Engr. Murry Dedam et al vs Engrs. Leandro Conti et al.

Civil Case Number 15-135089

16 March 2016 Manifestation with Motion was filed by Engrs.

Murry F. Demdam et. Al. among which
respectfully states that:

1. They are foregoing with their motion

and prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order in order
that the honorable court may proceed
to hear and considers the plaintiffs
motion.

2. Concomitant to the foregoing,

plaintiffs request the honorable court
and so move that the hearing be set
and scheduled for the motion of the
plaintiff regarding the prayer for the
issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction on the soonest date and
time

11 May 2016 Motion to declare Defendants in default and to

allow plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte
with
Motion to strike defendants Motion to dismiss

Motion to Declare Defendants in Default

Despite service to defendants failed to file an

answer within 15days from respective service
of summons to them pursuant to sec,6, rule 2
a.m. no. 01-2-04-SC (Rules of Procedure for
Intra Corporate Controversies), which governs
the case

1. Defendants Bagtasus and Fuentecilla

did not answer the following motion
for extension

2. For convenience, the pertinent portion

of the cited provisions states:
 “Sec. 6. Answer-The defendant shall file
an answer to the complaint, serving a
copy thereof on the plaintiff, within
15days from service of summons”

Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to

dismiss from the Records

1. First Ground - Motion To Dismiss is a

Prohibited Pleading

2. Second Ground - Motion filed was a

belated and a desparate, although
improper attempt to save the clear
failure to file an answer

3. Third ground – Subject of the motion

to dismiss is a sham. There is no
presence of Litis Pendencia in the
following cases filed by Engr. Murry ET.
Al against the defendants.

9 June 2016 Defendants filed a consolidated reply.

20 July 2016 A Reply was filed by Engrs. Murry Demdam

to the defendant’s consolidated opposition
respectfully stating that:

1. That the motion filed by the plaintiffs

deserves to be granted by the
honorable court on the basis of
existing facts and law.

2. Effects of failure to fule an answer is

provided In Sec. 7 Rule 2 of the Interim
Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate
Controversies.

3. All of the defendants did not file an

answer within 15days from the receipt
of summons.

4. The Defendants had knowledge that

they were going to be declared to be in
 default as manifested in there
consolidated oppositions

5. Despite knowledge of impending

default, they still made a last minute
maneuver of twisting the meaning of
the words “As the records may
warrant”

6. Contrary to defendants erroneous and

flawed posturing their motion to
dismiss and the grounds citred are not
included the phrase “as the record may
warrant”

7. Instead of meeting the basic

arguments presented by the plaintiffs,
the defendants did not advance any
reason why motion must remain in the
records of the case.

August 2,2016 Defendants Filed for a 15-day extension to file

for a rejoinder ( to the reply) Moreover Court
order for hearing to be held on 4 October 2016.

7 October 2016 Cour Order was received;

“Wherefore premises considered 1.) The

Motion to dismiss is Denied; 2.) Motion to
declare Defendants in default is granted and;
3.) Motion to strike defendants motion to
dismiss granted”