You are on page 1of 11

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


2.4 2 3 4 The Local Government Code of 1991 The New Civil Code of the Philippines CA-G.A. No. At the outset it must be recalled that defendant-appellant raised the following assignments of error in her Appeal Brief.R. as legal basis of Its ruling. CV. their claim that defendant-appellant Adelna is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement.MISJOINDER OF PARTIES IS A NON-ISSUE ON APPEAL. After a careful examination of the parties’ respective stand. plaintiffs-appellees had sufficiently established. 02969. We hold that pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of RA 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). 1. with preponderance of evidence. Decision. 71602. in relation to Article 20373. in relation to Article 2037 of the Civil Code. page 9 2|Page . 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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