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]

REPLY
PETITIONER, thru counsel, by way of reply to the comment of respondents, respectfully states: 1. That respondents raised the following counter-arguments in

their comment, to wit: FIRST. That the due execution and authenticity of the compromise agreement in the Barangay was fully established before the trial court; SECOND. That the monetary liability of petitioner to the respondents had been clearly proven before the trial court in addition to the compromise agreements;

1 | Page

[MA. 4. because the said law apply only to actions for enforcement of Barangay Amicable Settlement in the city or municipal court. Traverse to respondent’s position that the joinder of the claim of respondent Evangeline Sanchez as co-plaintiff in the trial court violates the rule on permissive joinder of parties. -versus.. It may not be amiss to stress at the outset that the instant petition is anchored on the argument that the Court of Appeals wrongly applied SECTIONS 416 AND 417 OF R.. Not being an action for enforcement of amicable settlement.. ESCUETA.MA.. found on pages 9 and 10 of the assailed decision. ET AL.-/ 2. 7160....A. 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). 156228. TERESA VIDAL. The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals. 2003].. 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 settlement. 3. G. 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. REPRESENTED BY HERMAN O...A. December 10. ESCUETA.THIRD.R. No. X.. IN REPLY TO THE FIRST COUNTERARGUMENT. which is likewise quoted in 2 | Page . TERESA O.

. Thus. if we have to toe the line of the Honorable Court of Appeals ruling. the action filed by respondents before the Regional Trial Court can never be one for 3 | Page . After a careful examination of the parties’ respective stand. the Honorable Court of Appeals is of the erroneous impression that the action before the Regional Trial Court was an enforcement of amicable settlement. . their claim that defendantappellant Adelna is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement. the 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. X x x x x x x . plaintiffs-appellees had sufficiently established. in relation to Article 2037 of the Civil Code. it would come out that the proceeding before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. . . But with all due deference maintained. with preponderance of evidence. 6. Branch 57 was null and void for lack of jurisdiction.respondents’ comment. The plaintiffs-appellees are pursuing the agreement that was stated in the amicable settlement. 5. So to speak. Verily. clearly speaks of the fact that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the law in the instant case. . that is why the complaint was focused on the execution of the agreement and not for recovery of sum of money. 7. . We hold that pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of RA 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). .

this being an ordinary civil action for sum of money before the Regional Trial Court. pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of R. That being an ordinary civil action for recovery of sum of money. What is reviewable here is the question of whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the said Amicable Settlement. respondents’ counter-argument that the authenticity and due execution of the compromise agreement was fully established before the trial court is of no moment because the Supreme Court does not review questions of fact. 7160. Therefore.A. but the sum of money which is supposedly collectible from petitioner. but was an ordinary civil action for recovery of sum of money. the cause of action herein is not the Amicable Settlement. the Court of Appeals cannot invoke Section 416 of R. 11. 10. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991). in order to accord the status of finality of the questioned amicable settlement executed before the Barangay Lupon. And it is our most respectful submission that petitioner cannot be held liable under the said Amicable Settlement because 4 | Page .A. 8.enforcement of amicable settlement. 9. Be that as it may.

whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the questioned Amicable Settlement. Also there is neither 5 | Page ...A. that is. but to apply the law of evidence to the set of facts borne out in the records of the instant case. which was enforced in an ordinary action for recovery of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court..... Thus. That contrary to respondents’ impression.... 13. Instead.-/ 14... X. That petitioner maintains that respondent Evangeline Sanchez’ claim against the petitioner did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transaction as the one which petitioner had with Linda Liston. petitioner is not asking the Honorable Supreme Court to review the evidence...... 7160. petitioner is asking the Supreme Court to review a truly germane question of law.-/ 12. IN REPLY TO THE THIRD COUNTERARGUMENT.. instead of an execution proceedings before the City Court pursuant to Sections 417 of R.. X.it was not enforced before the Municipal or City Court as mandated under Section 417 of R. petitioner is not asking the Supreme Court to review factual matters.A.. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991).. IN REPLY TO THE SECOND COUNTERARGUMENT.

commonality of law nor fact between respondents Evangeline Sanchez and Linda Liston. Having failed to satisfy the foregoing requisites. PRAYER W H E R E F O R E. Well-settled is the rule that the joinder of parties is merely permissive. to wit: (1) The right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions. Rules of Civil Procedure (1997) 6 | Page . 1 Section 6. it may be possible only under the following circumstances. therefore. Branch 57. and that after judicial review. that is. (2) There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants. (3) Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue. and order the dismissal of the original complaint before the Regional Trial Court. 15. the Honorable Supreme Court vacate and reverse the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. for failure to prove their claim by preponderance of evidence. Evangeline Sanchez’ claim is way below the jurisdictional amount cognizable by this Honorable Court. Rule 3. And more so. Cebu City. and.1 16. the joinder of Evangeline Sanchez is. improper. petitioner prays in reiteration that the instant petition be GIVEN DUE COURSE.

in the above-captioned case. L. 799700 * Bohol Chapter * Dec. Fernan Palace of Justice Capitol. Cherry Court. 2012 #8 Osmena Village. 6014 Mandaue City Email: attyahat@yahoo. No. 6000 Cebu City 7 | Page . 01. 2011 IBP O. MC0252673 * Mandaue City * Jan. 42349 * May 9. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City L. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 04. NILO G. I personally served a copy of the REPLY.J.Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are also prayed for. M. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C. 344-2858. Quezon Avenue Maguikay. depose and state: That in order to comply with the requirements of the Rules Of Court. specifically on the filing and service of pleadings. ROEL O. Mandaue City [for Manila]. 1997 MCLE Compliance No. AHAT Counsel for Petitioner Attorney's Roll No. to each of the following parties: Atty. under oath. of legal age.S. 2011 PTR No. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Hon.com Tel. IV-1008 * Feb. Philippines. BONIFACIO VALENCIA Counsel for Respondents Room 308.R. 24 August 2012. OMOLON. JUSTIFICATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I. Gen. 354-8338 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) IN THE CITY OF MANDAUE ) S. 14.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF. VALENCIA Counsel for Respondents Room 308.J. Series of 2 0 1 2 COPY FURNISHED: Atty. No. ______. ______. Page No. Philippines. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City BY PERSONAL SERVICE: __________________________________ ____________________________ _ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Hon. BONIFACIO L. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C. Book No. Philippines. I have hereunto affixed my signature on this _____th day of SEPTEMBER 2012 in Mandaue City. ______. Doc. OMOLON Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____TH day of SEPTEMBER 2012 in Mandaue City.That proof of service is indicated on the appropriate space opposite the respective names of the said parties. Gen. Fernan Palace of Justice 8 | Page . Cherry Court. ROEL O.

Capitol. 6000 Cebu City 9 | Page .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful