You are on page 1of 9

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

. The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals.-/ 2. December 10.A.R..THIRD. 4. ESCUETA. because the said law apply only to actions for enforcement of Barangay Amicable Settlement in the city or municipal court.. [MA. ESCUETA. TERESA VIDAL.....MA. G. IN REPLY TO THE FIRST COUNTERARGUMENT. which is likewise quoted in 2 | Page . REPRESENTED BY HERMAN O. 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... 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. No. ET AL. 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.A. -versus. 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). 156228. 7160. 3. found on pages 9 and 10 of the assailed decision... TERESA O. 2003]. Not being an action for enforcement of amicable settlement. 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. X.

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

11. 7160. 8. this being an ordinary civil action for sum of money before the Regional Trial Court. the cause of action herein is not the Amicable Settlement. Therefore. That being an ordinary civil action for recovery of sum of money. 10. in order to accord the status of finality of the questioned amicable settlement executed before the Barangay Lupon. 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 (The Local Government Code of 1991).A. Be that as it may. pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of R. What is reviewable here is the question of whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the said Amicable Settlement.A. but was an ordinary civil action for recovery of sum of money.enforcement of amicable settlement. 9. but the sum of money which is supposedly collectible from petitioner. And it is our most respectful submission that petitioner cannot be held liable under the said Amicable Settlement because 4 | Page . the Court of Appeals cannot invoke Section 416 of R.

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

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

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

Philippines. ROEL O. Gen. 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. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C.J. Page No. Fernan Palace of Justice 8 | Page . ______. Book No. No. Cherry Court. Series of 2 0 1 2 COPY FURNISHED: Atty.That proof of service is indicated on the appropriate space opposite the respective names of the said parties. ______. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. VALENCIA Counsel for Respondents Room 308. Philippines. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City BY PERSONAL SERVICE: __________________________________ ____________________________ _ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Hon. ______. BONIFACIO L.

Capitol. 6000 Cebu City 9 | Page .