Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila ADELNA ARRANGUEZ, Petitioner, - versus LINDA LISTON and EVANGELINE SANCHEZ, Respondents. X---------------/ G.R. No. 199000 [CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 02969]

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION OF MINUTE RESOLUTION
PETITIONER, thru counsel, by way of reconsideration or clarification of the Minute Resolution, dated 28 November 2012, of the Honorable Third Division, respectfully states:

TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION
1. That on 28 November 2012, the Honorable Third Division rendered a Minute Resolution of the instant case, the contents of which is hereunder quoted in full, to wit: “ G.R. No. 199000 (Adelna Arranguez vs. Linda Liston and Evangeline Sanchez). – Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, as well as the comment of respondents thereon and the reply of petitioner to said comment, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to show any reversible error in the challenged judgment as to warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per
1 | Page

Hence. J. 4. The November 28. whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the questioned Amicable Settlement.. of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Jr. Article VIII.1361 dated 19 November 2012). 2012 Minute Resolution of the Honorable Third Division should be reconsidered or clarified on the following grounds. 1360 dated 19 November 2012. this motion for reconsideration or clarification is filed within the reglementary period. 3. 2 | Page . Petitioner is entitled to a categorical ruling on the question of law. Leonardo-De Castro. per Special Order No. or until 01 FEBRUARY 2013 within which to seek reconsideration or clarification of the aforesaid Minute Resolution. in clear violation of Section 14.” 2. that is. instead of an execution proceedings before the City Court pursuant to Sections 416 & 417 of R. who is on official leave. That the above-quoted Minute Resolution of the Honorable Third Division was received by the undersigned counsel on 17 JANUARY 2013. to wit: The rationale in denying the petition for review on certiorari is unconstitutional as it does not state its legal basis. which was enforced in an ordinary action for recovery of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner has FIFTEEN (15) DAYS from receipt thereof..Special Order No. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991). acting Member in lieu of Justice Velasco. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION 5.A.

DISCUSSION The rationale in denying the petition for review on certiorari is unconstitutional as it does not state its legal basis. in “REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF TAMBULIG AND THE 11TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF MAHAYAG-DUMINGAG-JOSEFINA. BOTH IN ZAMBOANGA 3 | Page . 8.. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefore. The foregoing constitutional proscription is reinforced by the Rules of Court.A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge.SECTION 1.. [Article VIII. Rendition of judgments and final orders. --. Thus. of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The law in point is hereunder quoted to wit: Sec. in clear violation of Section 14. and filed with the clerk of court. -----------------------------6. 14. stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. in . 1987 Constitution] 7. signed by him. the Supreme Court. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Article VIII.

2005. of the Rules of Court. signed by him. Under Section 3. 4 | Page . In fact. it is not only judgments which must distinctly and clearly state the facts and the law upon which they are based. No.DEL SUR1.2 9. as amended. found respondent Judge Salvanera guilty of gross inefficiency. After the hearing. 219 . 3. for his rendering of a one-page decision dated 25 March 2004 without stating the facts and the law on which it was based in violation of Section 14. or order the amendment of the pleading. Rule 36 of the Rules of Court also requires that a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case “shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge. G. Article VIII of the Constitution. which provides: “No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. which merit disciplinary sanction. The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable. “ Sec. 132428.” Section 1. It is precisely prejudicial to the losing party. the court may dismiss the action or claim. Court of Appeals. and filed with the clerk of court. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached. gross ignorance of the law. 344 SCRA 202.M. MTJ-05-1573. Resolution of motion. October 12. deny the motion.” This requirement is an assurance to the parties that.R. Rule 16. Yao v. who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. 24 October 2000. the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. it is also required that resolutions disposing of a motion to dismiss shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore. in reaching judgment. and violations of pertinent administrative circulars of the Court. 1 2 A.

5 | Page . This requirement proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing a motion to dismiss for lack of merit. 260.” [Underscoring.In every case. 12. the court may dismiss the action or claim. Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. the appellate court can readily determine from a casual perusal thereof whether there is a prima facie justification for the dismissal. December 14. deny the motion. The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable. the Minute Resolution in the instant case. Resolution of motion.3 11. Continental Bank v. 50480. or order the amendment of the pleading. dated 28 November 2012. 94 SCRA 715. It only says that the petition failed to show any reversible error in the challenged judgment.R. With all due respect. After the hearing. 4 Under Section 3. Remedial Law Compendium. OURS] 10. Vol. No. 1979. 3 4 Regalado. as amended. fell short of the required constitutional standard for it leaves the petitioner in the dark as to how it was reached. usually on certiorari. Such cavalier dispositions can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the higher court called upon to resolve the same. the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore. In every case. A trial court should state in its order the reasons for the dismissal of the complaint so that when the order is appealed. 3. the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore. we require that resolutions disposing of a motion to dismiss shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore. As the Supreme Court said: We have admonished the trial courts not to issue a minute order or resolution like the one specified above. thus: Sec. I. p. G. Tiangco.

A. 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). ESCUETA. Not being an action for enforcement of amicable settlement. The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals. 156228. TERESA O.Petitioner is entitled to a categorical ruling on the question of law. No. [MA.A. ET AL.MA. It is not applicable herein because the action originates from the Regional Trial Court which has no jurisdiction to entertain actions for enforcement of barangay amicable settlements. TERESA VIDAL. -----------------------------13. 15. whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the questioned Amicable Settlement. December 10. After a careful examination of the parties’ respective stand. the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner Adelna Arranguez is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of R. 14. instead of an execution proceedings before the City Court pursuant to Sections 416 & 417 of R. clearly speaks of the fact that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the law in the instant case.. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991). To stress. REPRESENTED BY HERMAN O. which is found on pages 9 and 10 of the assailed decision. 2003]. 7160. the instant petition is anchored on the argument that the Court of Appeals wrongly applied SECTIONS 416 AND 417 OF R. that is. -versus. ESCUETA. which was enforced in an ordinary action for recovery of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court. G. We hold that pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of RA 7160 (The New Local 6 | Page .R. because the said law apply only to actions for enforcement of Barangay Amicable Settlement in the city or municipal court.A.

reliefs under the RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. and that after judicial review. . Therefore. plaintiffs-appellees had sufficiently established. PRAYER W H E R E F O R E . and render a new judgment granting the Petition for Review on Certiorari. and to order the dismissal of the original complaint before the Regional Trial Court. . Philippines. that is why the complaint was focused on the execution of the agreement and not for recovery of sum of money. 17. . Other just and equitable circumstances are also prayed for.Government Code of 1991). 16. The plaintiffsappellees are pursuing the agreement that was stated in the amicable settlement. their claim that defendant-appellant Adelna is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement. with preponderance of evidence. the Honorable Supreme Court vacate and reverse the assailed Minute Resolution dated 28 November 2012. Cebu City. 7160. . X x x x x x x . . the Honorable Court of Appeals missed the law when it failed to recognize the proscription that actions for the enforcement of barangay amicable settlements are cognizable only by the municipal or city courts.A. . Verily. Branch 57. Mandaue City [for Manila]. petitioner most respectfully prays that the instant motion be GIVEN DUE COURSE. in relation to Article 2037 of the Civil Code. it is our most respectful submission that petitioner cannot be held liable under the said Amicable Settlement because it was not enforced before the Municipal or City Court as mandated under Sections 416 & 417 of R. for failure of respondents to prove their claim by preponderance of evidence. 7 | Page . .

REC. of legal age. A4995820 * Mandaue City * Jan. Cherry Court. 8 | Page . 6000 Cebu City That proof of mailing is indicated on the appropriate space opposite the respective names of the said parties. to each of the following parties by REGISTERED MAIL: Atty. L. 354-8338 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) IN THE CITY OF MANDAUE ) S. specifically on the filing and service of pleadings. 6014 Mandaue City Email: attyahatnilog@hotmail.ph Tel. under oath. 2011 IBP O. 799890 * Bohol Chapter * Dec. 2012 PTR No. #_____________ MAILED ON ______________ MAILED AT ______________ BY REGISTERED MAIL PER: Hon. 42349 * May 9. NILO G.R.J. BONIFACIO L.31 January 2013. depose and state: That in order to comply with the requirements of the Rules Of Court. 1997 MCLE Compliance No. 04.S. 14. I served a copy of the Motion For Reconsideration or Clarification of Minute Resolution. JUSTIFICATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I. Gen. AHAT Counsel for Petitioner Attorney's Roll No. IV-1008 * Feb. Quezon Avenue Maguikay. Fernan Palace of MAILED AT ______________ Justice Capitol. 31. REC. No. ROEL O. VALENCIA Counsel for Respondents Room 308. 344-2858. 2013 #8 Osmena Village. PRESIDING JUDGE REG. OMOLON. in the above-captioned case. #_____________ RTC Branch 57 MAILED ON ______________ C. M. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City BY REGISTERED MAIL PER: REG.

BY REGISTERED MAIL VALENCIA PER: Counsel for Respondents REG. Doc. #_____________ 9 | Page . ROEL O. ______. REC. Book No. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. #_____________ Room 308.That service was done by registered mail due to the considerable distance involved coupled with lack of material time. Philippines. I have hereunto affixed my signature on this _____th day of FEBRUARY 2013 in Mandaue City. Maxilom Avenue MAILED AT ______________ 6000 Cebu City ________________________________ __________________________ Hon. ______. BONIFACIO L.J. Fernan Palace of Justice BY REGISTERED MAIL PER: REG. Series of 2 0 1 3 COPY FURNISHED: Atty. OMOLON Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this TH ____ day of FEBRUARY 2013 in Mandaue City. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C. Philippines. ______. REC. Page No. Cherry Court. No. MAILED ON ______________ Gen.

6000 Cebu City MAILED ON ______________ MAILED AT ______________ 10 | P a g e .Capitol.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful