Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Diliman, Quezon City

HEIRS OF CLEMENTE MANATO,

Rep. by PEDTRA M. MERES AND
ROMEO M. MANATO,
Appellants,

- versus - DENR Case No. 8881

ANALEE M. DAVID,
Appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

APPELLANTS, for and on their own behalf, unto this Honorable Office, hereby
file this Motion for Reconsideration from the 06 September 2011 Decision of the OIC,
Assistant Secretary for Legal Services, ATTY. ANSELMO C. ABUNGAN, of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and respectfully states that:

THE RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION

1. The OIC, Assistant Secretary for Legal Services, ATTY. ANSELMO C.

ABUNGAN, of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources promulgated a
Decision on 06 September 2011, the decretal portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, the instant Appeal is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Order dated December 16,
2008 of the Regional Executive Director, DENR-Region IV-B,
MIMAROPA, 1515 L & S Building, Roxas Boulevard, Ermita, Manila, is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ATTY. ANSELMO C. ABUNGAN
OIC, Assistant Secretary for Legal
Services”

THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE OIC, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

LEGAL SERVICES OF THE DENR COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR
AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE DISMISSED THE
APPEAL FOR LACK OF MERIT AND AFFIRMED ERRONEOUS DECISION OF
THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DENR-REGION IV-B, MIMAROPA.
 2

ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS

1. The unnumbered Free Patent Application of Analee M. David shall not be given
further due course on the grounds that:

1.1. The Free Patent Application was not verified by the Records
Unit of the DENR as to whether the said property is covered or not
covered by Public Land Application;

1.2. The said property, Lot 2846, Cad. 323-D, San Agustin
Cadastre was surveyed for Clemente Manato (father of the Protestants)
and no longer covered by any public land application. (Please see
Certification issued by the OIC, CENRO Officer, Gerardo Sabigan attached in
the Motion for Reconsideration marked as ANNEX “A”);

1.3. There is a pending claim case filed by the Protestants;

1.4. The Free Patent Application was not received by the Records
Unit of the DENR;

1.5. There was No Application Number on the Application for

Free Patent filed by the applicant;

1.6. The Free Patent Application was a falsified document

because it does not bear the signature of the Applicant.

1.7. A scrutiny of the Free Patent Application of Analee M.

David would readily show that the said application bears the signature of
her father Eduardo S. David who is not duly authorized by the Applicant.

2. That the applicant committed PERJURY by way of alleging in Par. 9, 10

and 11 in her application for free patent. Under paragraph 9 she declared that she and
her ancestor occupied, cultivated the land since the date of entry thereon on a date that
the Applicant can not and did not even identify.

3. The statement in paragraph no. 10 was false as she never possessed nor
cultivates the land in question.

4. Under Par. 11 of her application for free patent, she agreed to abide by the
rule that she will demarcate and preserve as permanent timberland to be planted
exclusively to trees of known economic value but she violated said provision by
constructing a concrete fence beside the creek or stream. The proof of the construction
can be easily identified by an ocular inspection.
 3

5. “Making untruthful statement in a narration of facts” in a document, the

applicant Analee M. David and her father Eduardo S. David are guilty of falsification of
public documents and perjury.

6. Falsification is a felony penalized under Article 172 of the Revised Penal

Code, which, inter alia, provides: “The penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 shall be imposed upon any
person who to the damage of a third party, or with intent to cause such damage, shall in
any private document enumerated x x x “ in Art. 171. Among other things, Article 171
provides that an act of falsification is committed by “making untruthful statement in a
narration of facts” in a document. The elements, therefore, of such felony are: (a.) the
document is false; and (b.) there is damage or intent to cause such damage. Such
falsification affects the truth and integrity of the document. The act need not cause any
actual prejudice—intent to prejudice is enough. (US v. Paraiso, 1 Phil. 127). The Spanish
text employs the word “perjuicio,” which is interpreted by the Court of Appeals as
synonymous to “dano” (People v. Marasigan [CA] G.R. No. 6040, October 18, 1940).

7. That the Affidavit of the Applicant in the Free Patent Application was
signed by her father Eduardo S. David and notarized by the Special Investigator Land
Management Inspector, FIDEL G. MEDINA, JR. , who is not duly authorized to
administer oath. Moreover the said affidavit was notarized in the absence of the
affiant/applicant, Analee M. David.

8. The failure of the Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL

G. MEDINA, JR., to examine carefully the falsified documents draws a conclusion that
he consented the falsification of the documents specially when he administered oath in
the absence of the Applicant, Analee M. David. He is likewise guilty of perjury.

9. The actuation of Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL

G. MEDINA, JR., of notarizing the aforestated Application for Free Patent is not in
connection with the exercise of his official duties, consequently, he acted beyond the
scope of his authority.

10. The Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL G.

MEDINA, JR., committed grave abuse of discretion when he recommended that the
(Unnumbered) Free Patent Application filed by Analee M. David be given further due
 4

course and the protest filed by the Protestant be dismissed for lack of merit without
conducting through investigation.

11. The Honorable Regional Executive Director of the DENR committed

serious and palpable errors of facts when he concurs with the recommendation of
Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL G. MEDINA, JR., If not
corrected, would cause grave or irreparable injury or damages to the Protestants.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

Decision or Order dated 16 December 2008 of this Honorable Regional Executive
Director of the DENR be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE AND A NEW ONE
ENTERED IN FAVOR OF the Protestants.

Further, Protestants prays that a copy the FORMAL/FINAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT be released or made available to them in the interest of fair play and due
process, and

Protestants are praying that for purposes of mailing, they are submitting No. 7
Cotabato Street, Barangay Ramon Magsaysay, Bago Bantay, Quezon City as their
mailing address and that processes and notices be served to the new mailing
address.

Protestants-Movant further prays for such other reliefs just and equitable
under the premises.

Quezon City, Philippines; 26th March 2009.

ROMEO M. MANATO
Protestant

PETRA M. MERES
Protestant
 5

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. PETRONI F. FRADEJAS

Counsel for the Protestee-Applicant
No. 001 Bonifacio Street corner Magsaysay Street
Barangay Liwayway, Odiongan
Romblon

ATTY. VIRGILIO B. TIONGSON

DENR - PENRO
Odiongan, Romblon

GERARDO B. SABIGAN
DENR-CENRO
Odiongan, Romblon

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Ombudsman Building
Agham Road, North Triangle
Diliman, Quezon City

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Malacañang Palace
Malacañang, Manila

Honorable Secretary Joselito Atienza

OFFICE OF THE DENR SECRETARY
Central Office, Visayas Avenue
Diliman, 1100 Quezon City

OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT

Supreme Court of the Philippines
Taft Avenue, Manila

EXPLANATION

(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copy of the Manifestation and Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration is being served to
the parties in the above-entitled case through registered mail, personal service not being
practicable due to distance and time constraints.
 6

ROMEO M. MANATO

PETRA M. MERES

VERIFICATION
AND
CERTIFICATION

I, EDUARDO ARANETA, Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for

Reconsideration and I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true
and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents;

3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
any other tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should learn that a similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake
to inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice thereof.

Done this 7th day of July 2011, at Quezon City.

EDUARDO ARANETA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of July 2011, in Quezon
City, Philippines. Affiant exhibiting to me his Driver License No. C07-08-012579.

Doc. No. ______; NOTARY PUBLIC

Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 2011.

NNNNNNNNNNNN

With due respect, the Honorable Commission missed the Amended Complaint
of the complainant-appellant, when it ruled:
 7

Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly

dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of
his actual reinstatement. However, since complainant is not seeking
reinstatement, he is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month
salary for every year of service and backwages from the date of his
dismissal until finality of this decision.

A copy of the Amended Complaint is hereto attached and marked as Annex “A”.

With due respect to the Honorable Commission, the fallo of the Decision, clearly
show an apparent error when it failed or skipped to state that backwages shall be
computed from the time of illegal dismissal until the date the decision becomes final.

Since there was finding of illegal dismissal complainant-appellant should be

reinstated to his former position with full backwages until finality of the decision.

In Albino Belen vs. Javellana Farms, Inc. and Daniel Javellana, Jr. (G.R. No.
182158, March 5, 2010), the Supreme Court held:

Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 34 of

Republic Act 6715 instructs:

Art. 279. Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular

employment, the employer shall not terminate the services
of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized
by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed
from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss
of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the
time his compensation was withheld from him up to the
time of his actual reinstatement.

Clearly, the law intends the award of backwages and similar

benefits to accumulate past the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision until
the dismissed employee is actually reinstated. But if, as in this case,
reinstatement is no longer possible, this Court has consistently ruled
that backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal dismissal
until the date the decision becomes final. [emphasis supplied]
 8

And in a more recent case of Nationwide Security & Allied Services, Inc. vs.
RONALD P. VALDERAMA, G. R. No. 186614, February 23, 2011, the Supreme Court
held:

Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is

unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges; to his full backwages,
inclusive of allowances; and to other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld
from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Commission that an Order be issued to reinstate complainant-appellant’s to his former
position with full backwages computed from the time of illegal dismissal until the date
of the decision becomes final.

Other reliefs and remedies which may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City, 07 July 2011.

R.R. RANION & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Complainants
No. 919 P. Campa Street
Sampaloc, Manila

By:

ATTY. RODOLFO R. RANION

Roll No. 25796
PTR No. 9239210; 01-03-2011; Manila
IBP NO. 798255; 12/28/2010 – 12/31/2012; Manila
MCLE Compliance No. III 0019748 – January 07, 2011

Copy Furnished:
 9

ATTY. CESAR S. CAINGLET

Counsel for the Respondents
No. 10 St. Andrew Street, Metrocor Homes
Almanza, Las Piñas City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration was served on the other party by
registered mail with return card due to lack of available messengerial personnel to
effect personal service or delivery.

RODOLFO RANION

VERIFICATION
AND
CERTIFICATION

I, EDUARDO ARANETA, Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for

Reconsideration and I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true
and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents;

3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
any other tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should learn that a similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake
to inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice thereof.
 10

Done this 7th day of July 2011, at Quezon City.

EDUARDO ARANETA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of July 2011, in Quezon
City, Philippines. Affiant exhibiting to me his Driver License No. C07-08-012579.

Doc. No. ______; NOTARY PUBLIC

Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 2011.