Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City
LINDA LISTON and EVANGELINE SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, - Versus – JOSE ARRANGUEZ, SPOUSES JUNIE LEE and TERESITA LEE, and MICHAEL LEE, Defendants-Appellees, ADELNA ARRANGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. X------------/ CA G.R. CEB-CV No. 02969

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, by counsel, most respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Decision, promulgated on May 12 2011 and received by the undersigned counsel on 25 May 2011, and in support thereof, states: THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING SECTIONS 416 and 417 OF R.A. 71601 IN THE INSTANT CASE. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MATTER OF
1

The New Local Government Act of 1991

1|Page

71602. No. The Honorable Court of Appeals resolved the first assigned error by affirming the findings of the Trial Court and citing Sections 416 and 417 of R. to wit: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE SIMULATED AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND IN UPHOLDING THE FICTITIOUS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF LINDA LISTON AGAINST DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ADELNA ARRANGUEZ. 02969. page 9 2|Page . At the outset it must be recalled that defendant-appellant raised the following assignments of error in her Appeal Brief. CV. We hold that pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of RA 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). Decision. in relation to Article 20373. 2.R. their claim that defendant-appellant Adelna is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement. as legal basis of Its ruling. 1. plaintiffs-appellees had sufficiently established. After a careful examination of the parties’ respective stand. in relation to Article 2037 of the Civil Code.MISJOINDER OF PARTIES IS A NON-ISSUE ON APPEAL.4 2 3 4 The Local Government Code of 1991 The New Civil Code of the Philippines CA-G.A. with preponderance of evidence. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE RULE ON PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES IN SO FAR AS THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE EVANGELINE SANCHEZ IS CONCERNED.

Firstly. in MA. explained that . by operation of law. the proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court. ESCUETA. 7160 provides for the mechanism of enforcing a settlement of the parties before the Lupon. No.MA.. 156228.. The cause of action is the amicable settlement itself.- 3|Page . has the force and effect of a final judgment. Sections 416 and 417 of R. namely.With all due respect. While under the second remedy. It provides for a two-tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement executed by the parties before the Lupon. ESCUETA.R. which remedy is judicial. Under the first remedy. the Supreme Court En Banc. -versus.A. which. Thus. as amended. 2003].REPRESENTED BY HERMAN O. because the said provisions of law does not squarely apply to the instant case. TERESA VIDAL. ET AL. the proceedings are covered by the Local Government Code and the Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations. and (b) by an action in regular form. (a) by execution of the Punong Barangay which is quasijudicial and summary in nature on mere motion of the party entitled thereto. December 10. TERESA O. [G. we take exception to both factual and legal basis cited by this Honorable Court.

as amended. the cause of action herein is no longer the Amicable Settlement.A. and if the settlement is not so enforced by the Lupon after the lapse of the said period. the settlement may be enforced by action in the proper city or municipal court. Having done so. but the sum of money which is collectible from defendant-appellant.) It must be noted that the kind of action filed by plaintiffs in the trial court below is not the kind of remedy mandated in Section 417 of R. this being an ordinary civil action.The amicable settlement which is not repudiated within the period therefor may be enforced by execution by the Lupon through the Punong Barangay within a time line of six months. it may be enforced only by an action in the proper city or municipal court as provided for in Section 417 of the Local Government Code of 1991. chan robles virtual law library By express provision of Section 417 of the LGC. Therefore. 7160 does not apply anymore. Sections 416 and 417 of R. which reads:chan robles virtual law library Sec. (Emphasis supplied.A. This is regardless of the nature of the complaint before the Lupon. After the lapse of such time. an action for the enforcement of the settlement should be instituted in the proper municipal or city court. 7160 which must be filed only in the proper city or municipal court. 417. Execution. plaintiffs opted for an ordinary civil action for the recovery of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court. and the relief prayed for therein.The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the Lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. Instead. 4|Page .

proof of the alleged indebtedness becomes necessary in the instant case because this is not one for execution of the barangay amicable settlement.O. plaintiff failed to explain why the same should be charged against defendant Adelna Arranguez. Cards) were not in the name of Adelna Arranguez. Thirdly. but an ordinary civil action for recovery of sum of money. The said P. because plaintiffs-appellees failed to prove the alleged indebtedness of defendant-appellant Adelna Arranguez.O. plaintiff-appellee Linda Liston failed to explain why most of the Purchase Order Cards (P. Cards were in the name of other persons. As earlier explained. with preponderance of evidence. But regrettably. Therefore. plaintiff is charging defendant for another man’s account. plaintiffs-appellees failed to prove the authenticity and due execution of the Amicable Settlement 5|Page . plaintiffs-appellees must prove the alleged indebtedness that gave rise to the recoverable amount. as a matter of burden of evidence. As previously argued. In other words. In fact.Secondly. their claim that defendant-appellant Adelna Arranguez is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement. exception to With all due deference maintained. we take the conclusion that plaintiffs-appellees had sufficiently established.

Well-settled is the rule that “allegations can never be considered as repositories of truth. “Plaintiff must therefore establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. affirmative allegations. defendantappellant already denied specifically each and every material allegations of the complaint on top of her affirmative allegations and affirmative defenses.. and affirmative defenses. i. 7160.A. in civil cases. Thus. evidence as a whole which is superior to that of the defendant. Court of Appeals. cannot serve as foundations for decisions resolving rights of litigants”.e. [Salva vs. et al. the burden of proof rests on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side. Hence.. right from the very inception. and hence. Proof of authenticity and due execution becomes necessary under the given circumstances that the said amicable settlement was not enforced in accordance with Section 417 of R. 645 (1999)]. 304 SCRA 632. it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove the material allegation of fact stated in its complaint.against the assertion of defendant-appellant that it was a simulated document. As a matter of fact. plaintiff should be deemed unable to discharge the requisite quantum of evidence. In other words. as a consequence of such specific denials. But having failed to do so. the party who alleges a fact has the burden of 6|Page .

X x x x x . Court of Appeals. Trans-Pacific Supplies. et al. the Honorable Court of appeals erred in holding that the matter of misjoinder of plaintiff-appellee Misjoinder of a Evangeline Sanchez is a non-issue on appeal. Hence. And FINALLY. . a new one be rendered DISMISSING the complaint in the Trial Court below for failure to prove plaintiffs’ cause of action. 206 (1998) citing Summa Insurance Corporation vs. 235 SCRA 494 (1994)].proving it. 288 SCRA 197. plaintiffs-appellees failed to prove their case by preponderance of evidence.. . Philippines. Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are also prayed for. Mandaue City [for Cebu City]. Inc. Court of Appeals.. PRAYER W H E R E F O R E. it can be raised anytime. et al. 7|Page . Court of Appeals. 253 SCRA 641 (1996). RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. . even for the first time on appeal. and in lieu thereof.” [Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization vs. and. it is most respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court reconsiders Its Decision of May 12 2011. being a jurisdictional issue. party boils down to the jurisdiction of the Court. vs.. et al. In sum.

tribunal or agency. 6014 Mandaue City Email: attyahat@yahoo. at Mandaue City. the Court of Appeals. ADELNA ARRANGUEZ. AHAT Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Attorney's Roll No. in the Supreme Court. no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court. or in any other court.com Tel No: 354-8338 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF MANDAUE ) S. depose and say: That --1. and to the best of my knowledge. or in any other court. tribunals or agency. the contents of which I have read and understood. resident of Camputhaw. tribunal or agency. M. the Court of Appeals. VERIFICATION I.08 June 2011 NILO G. 28. I hereby undertake to report that fact to this Honorable Court wherein this sworn certification have been filed. of legal age. L. I am the defendant-appellant in the above-captioned case. ADELNA ARRANGUEZ 8|Page . 42349 MCLE Compliance No. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 799537 * Bohol Chapter * Dec. 2010 #8 Osmena Village. Cebu City. As such. 05. or any other court. 0187958 * Mandaue City * Jan. 2. the Court of Appeals. III-0004165 * July 13. and are true and correct of my own knowledge and based on authentic records.S. Filipino. 2009 PTR No. That I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same or similar issues. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion For Reconsideration. Philippines. I have hereunto affixed my signature on this _____ day of JUNE 2011. Quezon Avenue Maguikay. subscribing under oath. and if I should learn hereafter that a similar action or proceeding is pending or has been filed in the Supreme Court. 2011 IBP No.

ALVAREZ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Counsel for DefendantsAppellees 9th Floor. _______. Cebu Holdings Center Cebu Business Park 6000 Cebu City BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Hon. Cherry Court.D.J. Doc. Philippines. No. No. Page No. DEOLITO L. Book No. _______________________ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____th of JUNE 2011 in Mandaue City. Series of 2 0 1 1 Copy furnished: Atty.I. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: VALENCIA Counsel for PlaintiffsAppellees Room 308. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City Atty. Fernan Palace of Justice 9|Page . Gen. _______. BONIFACIO L. _______. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C.

BONIFACIO L. in the following mode. 10 | P a g e day of June . to wit: Atty. JUSTIFICATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C. under oath. 6000 Cebu City REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) IN THE CITY OF MANDAUE ) S. ROEL O.Capitol. OMOLON. Fernan Palace of Justice Capitol. ROEL O. Cebu Holdings Center Cebu Business Park 6000 Cebu City BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Hon. I have hereunto affixed my signature on this 9th day of June 2011 in Mandaue City. to each of the following parties. Cherry Court. of legal age. I served a copy of the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.S. Gen. depose and state: That in order to comply with the requirements of the Rules Of Court. VALENCIA Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees Room 308. OMOLON Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____TH 2011 in Mandaue City.J. ALVAREZ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Counsel for DefendantsAppellees 9th Floor. DEOLITO L. Philippines. 6000 Cebu City IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Atty. specifically on the service of pleadings. Philippines. in the above-captioned case.

No. _______. _______.Doc. Series of 2 0 1 1 11 | P a g e . Page No. Book No. _______.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful