How Lucky Are The Gutierrez Family?

The enemies of the Gutierrez family can't catch a break, can they?

Anabelle Rama can be found these days in her voodoo room doing thanksgiving rituals to her dolls. Why not? The Gutierrez family is on a winning streak - legal-wise.

The Reckless Imprudence resulting to homicide case filed against Richard Gutierrez filed by the widow of his assistant who died in a car crash with Richard last year has been dismissed by the DOJ.

You have a very powerful car made for speed and you can't take advantage of it, not with Metro Manila's traffic situation. What do you do? Turn a random Cavite road into an instant race track, that's what you do? Do you blame, Richard? And the DOJ secretaries past and present agree with him.

Not convinced yet that the Gutierrez are lucky bastards?

Then, Wilma Galvante, GMA 7's VP for Entertainment, could be jailed and pay Anabelle fucking Rama millions and millions of pesoses because the DOJ reversed its earlier decision dismissing the case.

I can't accept that the Gutierrez family is sooo lucky. I can't with them. I don't think the voodoo gods are smiling down at this family. I just can't. This leaves me with the question: Which influential person(s) is/are Anabelle, Ruffa or Raymond blowing!?

Anabelle Rama Responds to Dismissal of Libel Case Against Wilma Galvante

Anabelle Rama has called time out from “playing” with her Wilma Galvante voodoo dolls to put out a statement regarding the dismissal of the libel case she filed against Wilma Galvante, the Vice President of Entertainment at GMA 7.

From reading her statement, I’m inclined to believe that Anabelle Rama has finally crossed that line into mental illness. But she’s not yet there; she’s on the brink. I believe Anabelle Rama will finally lose her sh*t when Richard goes to jail for killing his personal assistant, Nomar Pardo, in a vehicular accident as a result of reckless driving, or when Wilma Galvante emerges victorious in her P7 M damage suit against her, whichever comes first.

Her statement once again shows Anabelle Rama’s arrogance, rudeness and her belief that she and the Gutierrez clan are the only sons and daughters of God. Every body else are gnats, or thorns on her side.

I am encouraging Anabelle Rama to take advantage of Wilma Galvante’s move to cancel the TRO and injunction filed against her. Go to every newspaper, entertainment news program and radio show in the country to reveal Wilma Galvante’s skeletons in her closet. That will teach Wilma Galvante not to mess with the Queen Bee, Anabelle Rama. (wink, wink)

Anabelle Rama’s statement via PEP:

"I just heard that my case against Wilma was dismissed. Obvious ba? The wife of Wilma’s lawyer is the assistant prosecutor of Quezon City.

“I was advised by my friends not to file my case in Quezon City dahil walang mangyayari. I believed the justice system aandar sa case ko. Umpisa pa lang ang laban. Mahaba ang lalakbayin sa kasong ito. I will file motion of reconsideration para i-review yung case.

"I filed slander because sinisiraan ako ni Wilma sa talent ko na si JC de Vera na sinusulot niya sa akin. At yung pangungurakot niya sa akin. Clear na clear ang panghihingi niya ng dollars at mga bags. Five years na akong kinokotongan.

"Ako’y nag-e-enjoy sa hearing. Meron tayong Trial Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Fiscal pa lang kami. Mauubos ang pera ni Wilma sa kasusuhol para manalo. Again, uulitin ko, matira matibay. Di ako titigil!

"Duwag ka talaga! Ang tapang mong magdemanda sa akin. Bakit mo winidraw yung finile mong TRO at injunction? Tinakot mo pa lahat ng press na sumulat sa interview ko tungkol sa ’yo. Nagmukha silang tanga, dala-dala ang mga clippings sa court! Pati tape interview ko sa TV Patrol, pina-subpoena mo. Pati interview ko sa radyo.

"Ano ‘yan, harassment? Or pananakot? So ngayon, free na ako magpa-presscon at magpa-interview.

"Isang hearing pa, lang natin sumurender ka na? Di pa ako nag-enjoy yung last hearing. Nabitin ako, excited na akong umupo sa witness stand para sabihin ko ang lahat ng baho mo!

Oral Defamation Case Filed by Annabel Rama Against Wilma Galvante Dismissed

Moneyger and monster mom Anabelle Rama is cooped up in her secret room “playing” with her Wilma Galvente voodoo doll because the Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor Office dismissed the Grave Oral Defamation or Grave Slander filed by Anabelle Rama against Wilma Galvante, Vice President for Entertainment at GMA Network.

The Prosecutor’s Office cited “lack of probable cause” in dismissing the complaint.

The case stemmed from Rama’s allegations that Galvante maligned her and undermined her role as manager to JC during an incident on 16 Feb 2009 inside Galvante’s office at GMA 7.

HAHAHA. Strike two for the “esteemed” (heaping dose of sarcasm here) Gutierrez clan. Richard Gutierrez lost his P25 M libel suit against PEP, which the family is not above using whenever they have a statement they want to make public. And now Anabelle’s grave slander suit against Wilma Galvante.

The third strike would either come from: Wilma Galvante winning her P7 M damage suit against Anabelle or Richard Gutierrez being found liable for causing the car accident in Cavite that killed his personal assistant, Nomar Pardo.

The following statements from Galvante were neither derogatory nor insulting, according to the QC Prosecutor’s Office:

"Tingnan mo? Tingnan mo kung ano ang ginagawa ng manager mo?"

"Hindi kayo puwedeng tumanggi sa show at kung tumanggi kayo, puwede kayo mademanda."

"They were just tolerating Annabelle, because when she didn’t like a project, she would pull out her talents pag malapit na ang show. Pero sobra na."

"Happy ka ba sa manager mo? Ilan taon pa ba ang kontrata mo sa kanya?

"May kopya ka ba ng contract mo with Annabelle? Puwede ko bang makita?"

"If there is anything I can help you with, just tell me."

Asst. City Prosecutor Torralba ruled, "Contrary to the theory of the complainant [Annabelle] that said statements are defamatory, insulting, malicious, and tend to prejudice complainant in her reputation, office or trade, business or means of livelihood, the undersigned finds nothing derogatory nor insulting to the complainant but rather finds the said statements to be more of a reminder to JC that they could be held liable in case they fail to comply with their contract with the network than a malicious or defamatory statement.