Republic of the Philippines

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

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

The New Local Government Act of 1991


71602. 1. plaintiffs-appellees had sufficiently established. At the outset it must be recalled that defendant-appellant raised the following assignments of error in her Appeal Brief. in relation to Article 20373. 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. CV. in relation to Article 2037 of the Civil Code. Decision.R. We hold that pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of RA 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). 02969.MISJOINDER OF PARTIES IS A NON-ISSUE ON APPEAL. No.A. 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. as legal basis of Its ruling. 2. their claim that defendant-appellant Adelna is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement.4 2 3 4 The Local Government Code of 1991 The New Civil Code of the Philippines CA-G. 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. page 9 2|Page . After a careful examination of the parties’ respective stand.

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

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

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

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

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

S. of legal age. depose and say: That --1.08 June 2011 NILO G. That I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same or similar issues. or in any other court. III-0004165 * July 13. and to the best of my knowledge. M. 799537 * Bohol Chapter * Dec. 42349 MCLE Compliance No. tribunals or agency. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion For Reconsideration. the contents of which I have read and understood. no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court. in the Supreme Court. ADELNA ARRANGUEZ. 05. I have hereunto affixed my signature on this _____ day of JUNE 2011. 6014 Mandaue City Email: attyahat@yahoo. 2. 28. the Court of Appeals. Philippines. Quezon Avenue Maguikay. ADELNA ARRANGUEZ 8|Page . resident of Camputhaw. 2011 IBP No. Cebu City. 2009 PTR No. subscribing under oath. Tel No: 354-8338 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF MANDAUE ) S. at Mandaue City. VERIFICATION I. As such. AHAT Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Attorney's Roll No. 0187958 * Mandaue City * Jan. 2010 #8 Osmena Village. the Court of Appeals. and if I should learn hereafter that a similar action or proceeding is pending or has been filed in the Supreme Court. tribunal or agency. the Court of Appeals. or any other court. or in any other court. and are true and correct of my own knowledge and based on authentic records. I am the defendant-appellant in the above-captioned case. tribunal or agency. Filipino. I hereby undertake to report that fact to this Honorable Court wherein this sworn certification have been filed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.

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

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

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