Trillanes files P6.5-M countersuit vs Tiu

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV has filed a P6.5-million countersuit against businessman Antonio Tiu, whom he accused of being a dummy of Vice President Jejomar Binay.

“Sen. Trillanes has suffered sleepless nights, wounded feelings, extreme anxiety and a slur in his reputation as a result of Tiu’s civil case,” the Chan Robles and Associates law firm, which represents the senator, said in a counter charge filed Wednesday before a Quezon City court.

In a 29-page answer with motion to dismiss, the senator asked Judge Evangeline Marigomen to order the businessman to pay him P5 million in moral damages, P1 million in exemplary damages and P500,000 in attorney’s fees.

UPDATE: Trillanes, Pimentel inspect Makati school for signs of 'overpricing'

Tiu had earlier filed a P5-million civil case against Trillanes for accusing him of being a dummy of the Vice President after the businessman claimed ownership of a Batangas property allegedly owned by the Binays.

He claimed that his business reputation has been severely tarnished by the repeated allegations of the senator that he was a dummy of Binay.

But the senator’s lawyers said he could not be held liable for the damages caused by his statement as it was based on documents, reports and information that point to Tiu as being a dummy of Binay.

The senator said that Tiu failed to establish that he is the “absolute owner” of the property.

Trillanes’ lawyers also tried to establish Tiu as a public figure, saying he deliberately inserted himself “into the vortex of a raging public debate” when he made media rounds and volunteered himself as the owner of the Batangas property.

“Tiu may no longer be considered as a private individual as he claims, but he has acquired that status of a public figure or a quasi-public figure,” they said.

“Sen. Trillanes’ response to media that he believes that Tiu is a ‘front,’ ‘nominee’ or ‘dummy’ of Binay, regardless of how caustic and unpleasant it may be to the plaintiff, who is undeniably a public figure, clearly qualify for constitutional protection,” they added.