You are on page 1of 4

1 October 2015

STRICTLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

CLIENTS NAME
Clients Address

Attention : ADDRESSEE 1
Position

ADDRESSEE 2
Position

Re : Case Title Civil Case No. 5315,


Branch 9, Regional Trial Court of
Balayan, Batangas
----------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen:

On 1 October 2015, our Atty. Jose Angelo David (Atty.


David), as counsel for Petitioner Clients Full Name (Clients Short
Name), attended the hearing on:

(1) the Motion for Time to File Comment/Opposition to the


Amended Petition and to the Motion for Consignation
filed by Respondents;
(2) the Motion for Consignation filed by Petitioner; and
(3) the Omnibus Motion to (a) Resolve Petitioners
Amended Petition for Court Proceeding, and (b) Deny
and Expunge Respondents Motion for Time to File
Comment/Opposition to the Amended Petition and to
the Motion for Consignation (Omnibus Motion).

Atty. XYZ (Atty. XYZ) attended as counsel for Client XYZ.


(XYZ). Atty. ABC (Atty. ABC) attended as counsel for Client ABC
(ABC). Atty. 123 (Atty. 123) attended as counsel for Respondent,
Client 123 (123). Respondent was also present during the hearing.
Honorable Judge Carolina F. de Jesus (Judge de Jesus) presided
over the hearing.

On ABCs Omnibus Motion

Atty. 123 requested the Court to allow Respondents twenty


(20) days from 1 October 2015 within which to file a
Comment/Opposition to the Amended Petition for Court Proceeding
(Amended Petition).
Judge de Jesus then reiterated that the Court had already
issued an Order denying Respondents Motion for Time. She noted
that the Respondents were served a copy of the Amended Petition
four (4) months ago and found no merit to the reason proffered by
Atty. 123 for his failure to file a Comment/Opposition to the
Amended Petition.

Atty. 123 asked instead that Respondents


Comment/Opposition to the original Petition for Court Proceeding be
adopted as Respondents Comment/Opposition to the Amended
Petition.

Atty. David interposed his objection, and said that the


Comment/Opposition, if adopted now, would already be filed out of
time. He also reiterated Petitioners previous ground for expunction
of Respondents Comment/Opposition to the original Petition that it
suffers from formal defects for lack of verification. He likewise
explained that under the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure
(FR Rules), if the respondent fails to file a comment on the
petition, the Court is given the discretion to instead conduct a
clarificatory hearing, such as the one already being held by the
Court. Thus, there was no need to adopt Respondents
Comment/Opposition to the original Petition.

Judge de Jesus granted Atty. 123s request that Respondents


Comment/Opposition to the original Petition be adopted as
Respondents Comment/Opposition to the Amended Petition.

Atty. 123 then asked the Court to conduct another hearing to


clarify supposed factual issues raised in the Amended Petition. He
argued that there is a need to confirm whether the computations in
the thresholds for the Omnibus Out-of-Court Restructuring
Agreement (OCRA) were really obtained by Petitioner.

Atty. David objected and argued that there is no need to


conduct another hearing on the matter raised. He noted that the
facts laid down in Petitioners Amended Petition, and the figures
alleged in the Motion for Consignation as regards the thresholds can
be confirmed by a simple mathematical computation. Atty. XYZ
agreed with Atty. David and he registered the same objection. Both
counsels asked that the Amended Petition be already submitted for
resolution.

Judge de Jesus denied Atty. 123s request for another


clarificatory hearing. She noted that Atty. 123 should have asked for
a hearing long before, when the Amended Petition was filed, and
agreed with Atty. David that the issue presented by Atty. 123 was
not a genuine factual issue that needs a separate hearing. Judge de
Jesus ordered the Amended Petition submitted for resolution.

Atty. 123 reserved his right to file a motion for


reconsideration.
Atty. 123 then moved in open court that Respondents
Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Consignation be admitted
because the same was already prepared and ready for filing in open
court.

Atty. David again opposed Respondents Motion. He


emphasized that the FR Rules prohibits the filing of motions for
extension, and that Respondents Motion to Admit should be denied
for the same reason as the denial of Respondents Motion for
Additional Time to File Comment/Opposition to the Amended
Petition. Atty. XYZ joined in Atty. Davids objection.

Judge de Jesus asked for a copy of Respondents


Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Consignation. After perusing
the Comment/Opposition, Judge de Jesus granted the Respondents
motion to admit the same in the interest of justice.

Atty. David registered his continuing objection.

On Petitioners Motion for Consignation

Judge de Jesus asked Atty. David as regards the purpose of


the Motion for Consignation.

Atty. David explained that the Motion for Consignation asks


the Court to allow Petitioner to deposit, by way of consignation,
roofing sheets for the purpose of state purpose here.

Judge de Jesus inquired whether the roofing sheets are placed


in a separate warehouse, separated from other roofing sheets and
steel products of Petitioner.

Atty. David manifested that, to the best of his knowledge, the


roofing sheets are within Petitioners plant but he asked for time to
confer with client whether the roofing sheets are in a separate
warehouse. He also manifested that, if ordered by the Court,
necessary arrangements can be made to ensure that the roofing
sheets subject of consignation are separated from Petitioners other
steel products.

Judge de Jesus gave Petitioner five (5) days from the date of
hearing, or until 6 October 2015, within which to file a Manifestation.
She noted that the resolution of the Motion for Consignation is
deferred until the submission of the Manifestation from Petitioner.

Thus, kindly note the following:

(1) Petitioners Amended Petition has been submitted for


resolution, and no further hearing will be conducted
thereon; and
(2) Petitioner is given five (5) days from 1 October 2015, or
until 6 October 2015, within which to file a Manifestation
whether the roofing sheets to be deposited with the Court
are placed in a warehouse separate from Petitioners other
steel products; and
(3) the resolution of Petitioners Motion for Consignation is
deferred until Petitioner has filed the Manifestation
referred to above.

Kindly confirm whether or not the roofing sheets are placed in


a separate warehouse so that we can file a Manifestation with the
Court on or before 6 October 2015.

We shall update you on further developments.

Very truly yours,

ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA & CRUZ

By:

JOSE ANGELO A. DAVID