Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.

I am not a pro bono lawyer. See the PAO or IBP chapter near you for free legal aid.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Sample expanded joint judicial affidavit of two witnesses to serve as their direct examination, per the Rule on Judicial Affidavit, on the issue of the dissolution of a preliminary injunction

This is a sample expanded joint judicial affidavit of two witnesses, which serves as their direct examination in a civil case, per the Rule on Judicial Affidavit. It refers to a pending motion for the dissolution of the preliminary injunction issued by the court. We are sharing this for the legal research purposes of our readers.

IN RELATION TO THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) PENDING MOTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS ON THE MATTER OF THE REQUESTED POSTING BY THE DEFENDANTS OF A “COUNTER INJUNCTION BOND” TO LIFT THE PRELIINARY INJUCNTION EARLIER ISSED BY THE HONORABLE COURT, TO WIT :

(1) “URGENT MOTION TO RECALL AND REVOKE THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 13, 2015; AND TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREUNDER”, dated July 7, 2015;

(2) “VERIFIED AD CAUTELAM SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION (In Relation to the Defendants Pending “URGENT MOTION TO RECALL AND REVOKE THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 13, 2015; AND TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREUNDER”, dated July 7, 2015)”, dated July 8, 2015;

(3) “ MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF THE ‘INJUNCTION COUNTERBOND’ ISSUE UNDER SEC. 6, RULE 58” , dated August 15, 2015.

The joint testimony of the undersigned affiants-witnesses-defendants xxx and xxx is being offered to prove the merits of their aforecited three (3) pending motions to be ALLOWED BY THE COURT TO POST A COUNTER-INJUNCTION BOND TO LIFT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION EARLIER ISSUED BY THE COURT.

A – We are xxx and xxx. Our respective personal circumstances are stated in Part I hereof, supra (See: “PRELIMINARY INFORMATION: NAME AND OTHER PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WITNESS”).

A – To give our joint sworn statement by way of a judicial affidavit, the same to constitute as our joint direct testimony in support of our above captioned three (3) pending motions (See “Title” of this pleading), to wit:

(1) “URGENT MOTION TO RECALL AND REVOKE THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 13, 2015; AND TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREUNDER”, dated July 7, 2015;

(2) “VERIFIED AD CAUTELAM SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION (In Relation to the Defendants Pending “URGENT MOTION TO RECALL AND REVOKE THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 13, 2015; AND TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THEREUNDER”, dated July 7, 2015)”, dated July 8, 2015;

“MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF THE ‘INJUNCTION COUNTERBOND’ ISSUE UNDER SEC. 6, RULE 58”, dated August 15, 2015 .

3. Q- For the record, please state the name and address of the Lawyer who is now conducting or supervising your examination and the place where the examination is being held now?

A –Our Legal Counsel, Atty. xxx is conducting or supervising my examination now at his law office (Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices) located at Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740.

5. Q – Do you undertake to answer the questions to be asked of you, fully conscious that you will do so under oath, and that you may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury?

A – The undersigned XXX XXX is the incumbent/holdover President of XXX while the undersigned XXX XXX is the incumbent/holdover Vice President and the Chairman of the Technical and Legal Committee of XXX.

9. Q – Please state the names and positions of the other directors/officers of your XXX Board under your leadership.

A - We know the plaintiff because our Association (XXX) has an ongoing political and water service-related conflict with the plaintiff XXX for many years now.

12. Q – Please describe the reason/s for the said ongoing political and water service-related conflict between your Association (XXX) and the plaintiff XXX.

A – In 2014 our Association (XXX), led by the then XXX president xxx (a co-Defendant), by virtue of XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 dated October 5, 2014, REVOKED the old XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx and Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx.

The said XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 dated October 5, 2014, in REVOKING the old XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx and Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx, expressly TERMINATED the old authority of the plaintiff XXX to operate the XXX Water System. It also in effect revoked the authority of plaintiff XXX to deal with the MANILA WATER CO., INC. (“MWCI”, for brevity) in behalf of XXX and the XXX Water System with respect to the supply of MWCI-provided water to the homeowners of the Subdivision.

The said XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 was RATIFIED by 496 XXX members (affected water consumers) of the Subdivision. The plaintiff XXX to this very day does not recognize our authority and leadership as the incumbent/holdover Board of XXX. The plaintiff XXX does not recognize the aforementioned Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 revoking its authority to operate the XXX Water System. The plaintiff XXX likewise does not recognize the aforementioned 2014 ratification by 496 XXX members (affected water consumers) of the said Board Resolution No. xxx-2014 revoking the authority of the plaintiff to operate the XXX Water System.

A – The XXX Water Committee (“AWC”, for brevity) under the XXX Board, which we lead as President and Vice President, operates the XXX Water System. The XXX Water System is owned by XXX as an association and by all XXX members in our subdivision. It is not owned by the plaintiff XXX.

(b) It misrepresents itself to the public that it is the entity duly authorized by XXX to operate the XXX Water System and to transact business with the MWCI.

(c) It disconnects the water meters of dissenting homeowners who question its authority to operate the XXX Water System, who do not recognize its authority to collect payments for water bills from homeowners, and who prefer to pay their water bills to the XXX Water Committee.

(b) It insists that XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2014, which revoked its authority to operate the Water system per the old Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx and Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx, is invalid.

(c) It does not recognize the 2014 ratification by the 496 XXX members of the aforecited Board Resolution No. xxx-2014.

Hence, the conflict between the incumbent XXX Board, under our leadership, on one hand, and the plaintiff XXX and its co-conspirators in the illegal “Xxx Board” of XXX, on the other, continues until now.

(c) It has sowed turmoil, confusion and potential violence among the XXX members supporting our Board (“Xxx Board”), on one hand, and the XXX members supporting the “Xxx Board” and the plaintiff XXX, on the other.

(d) It has adversely affected the efficient, effective, and prompt delivery of water (at a fair price) and other basic socio-economic services to the homeowners.

16. Q – What efforts, if any, were taken by your leadership to restore peace and unity and to serve the common good of the homeowners in your Subdivision?

A – In the latter part of 2015, our XXX Board filed a formal complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) invoking its mandate and jurisdiction to call and supervise the next regular election of directors/officers of XXX for the calendar year/term 2016-2017 to restore peace, order, unity, good governance, and accountability in the XXX as an association.

A - The HLURB Arbiter in charge of our complaint, xxx, has issued a Decision, dated 27 November 2015, granting our prayer for a HLURB-supervised election.

A – The Xxx Board and its conspirators in the Board of the plaintiff ASPMC appealed the decision of the HLURB Arbiter xxx. But the HLURB National Capital Region Field Office (NCRFO) – Homeowners Association (HOA) has fixed the election date on xxx, 2016 despite the appeal of the Xxx Board. The HLURB NCRFO HOA is now in the process of preparing for the holding of the said election.

A – We respectfully pray to the Honorable Court to allow the Defendants in this case to post a counter-injunction bond to lift the preliminary earlier issued by the Court because if the existing preliminary injunction is not lifted the common good and the general welfare of the homeowners of the Subdivision will continue to suffer in the following ways:

(a) The homeowners will continue to suffer from the high costs of water that the plaintiff XXX forcibly bills to and collects from the XXX members as compared to the regular cost of water billed by the MWCI, considering that the plaintiff XXX constitutes as an unnecessary and expensive additional layer or surplusage distributor/intermediary on top of the MWCI, which is the duly authorized, official and primary water concessionaire/supplier mandated by the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to supply the water needs of the people of the Province of Xxx;

(b) The dissenting homeowners, who do not recognize the authority of the plaintiff XXX to operate the XXX Water System and who pay their water bills to the XXX Water Committee of the incumbent XXX Board (composed of the herein Defendants), are being harassed by the plaintiff by disconnecting their water meters, thus, depriving them of the “basic human right to water”, a dangerous situation that has resulted in potential violence and encounters between the affected homeowners and the agents of the plaintiff XXX;

(c) The unauthorized act of the plaintiff XXX of operating the XXX Water System (which it does not own in the first place) has created divisiveness, confusion, turmoil, animosity, and demoralization among the homeowners of the Subdivision; and, further, it has created similar confusion among the external public agencies and external private entities which transact business with the XXX as an association and the homeowners themselves (e.g, the MWCI, the Local Government Unit/s, and others), resulting in a grave failure in the delivery of basic socio-economic services to the homeowners;

20. Q – For the information of the Court, please describe, if you know, the history of the supply of water to the homeowners in your Subdivision.

A - Prior to the operation of the MWCI in the Province of Xxx in 1998, the water supply in our subdivision, with about 400 households at that time, was provided by a submersible (deep well) pump owned and operated by xxx & Family (“xxx”, for brevity).

In 2xxx, the old XXX Board, headed by President xxx, entered into a contract with the MWCI for the bulk supply of water to the Subdivision. The old 2xxx XXX Board passed Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx creating the XXX Water Committee (AWC) to manage the water operation of the XXX Water System. It appointed xxx as the Chairman of the said Committee. In its operation of the XXX Water System, the AWC used the official receipts of XXX as an Association, i.e., collection of connection fees and water payments from the XXX members-water consumers.

In the same year (2xxx), XXX Board, under President xxx and in collaboration with AWC Chairman xxx passed XXX Board Resolution No. xxx-2xxx transferring the authority of the XXX Water Committee to operate the XXX Water System to the plaintiff XXX without the prior consent and approval of the majority of the 400 XXX members.

A - xxx and xxx ruled over the subdivision on a holdover status from 2xxx up to the term/calendar year 2005. In 2005 the xxx-xxx tandem recruited 127 XXX members to create the plaintiff XXX. Their intent was to institutionalize the role of the plaintiff xxx as the sole operator of the XXX Water System. In the same year (2005) the xxx-xxx tandem registered the plaintiff XXX with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) to perpetuate the monopoly of the plaintiff XXX over the XXX Water System.

In 2006 the outgoing xxx-xxx tandem managed to include as directors in the XXX Board the following directors of the plaintiff XXX, namely, xxx, xxx xxx, xxx, and xxx. It was the start of an immoral and conspirational INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES between the directors/officers of plaintiff XXX, on one hand, and the old XXX directors/officers then led by the xxx-xxx tandem, on the other.

A - The xxx-xxx tandem strengthened the immoral and conspirational interlocking directorates when the said tandem and the said interlocking directorates manipulated the installation of xxx (a director/officer of plaintiff XXX) as the new XXX President. The said interlocking directors declared themselves as holdover XXX Officers for the term/calendar year 2xxx. The said conspiring and interlocking directors perpetuated themselves in power by manipulating the subsequent XXX “selections” (not elections) in complete disrespect of the right of suffrage of the homeowners.

When the homeowners protested the immoral interlocking directorates, the following XXX-XXX interlocking directors namely, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, and xxx, were constrained to withdraw as XXX directors/officers.

A - Subsequently the plaintiff XXX’s legal adviser xxx (“Xxx”, for brevity; who was and who continues to be an interlocking director/officer of XXX and plaintiff XXX; and who is the real brain behind the instant case against the herein Defendants) took over and regrouped the said breakaway XXX inner core (composed of xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, et. al., supra). The objective was to resurrect their political control over XXX while at the same interlocking as directors/officers of the plaintiff XXX. Xxx and her group controlled the 2008 XXX election, using the XXX rules and regulations by threatening dissenting homeowners of deprivation of water supply if they would not support her group of candidates. Atty. Xxx claims to be the President of the “Xxx Board” of XXX until the present time by declaring her Board as a holdover board from 2009 to the present time. Meanwhile, Xxx sits in the XXX Board as an interlocking director/officer.

A - Seeing the political intention of Xxx and her group to perpetuate themselves in power by pushing for a holdover status beyond the end of their tem on December 31, 2008, the majority of the XXX homeowners were constrained to advocate for democratic reforms in the election of the leaders of XXX to serve the common good. The homeowners initiated a petition to conduct election. An election of XXX directors/officers was conducted by the homeowners on 5 April 2009. The 11 winning candidates took oath the next day, 6 April 2009. They were as follows: