1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/ CA.G.R. CEB CV. No. 05891

VIRGILIO A. YAP,
Complainant-Appellant,

-versus-

CRESENCIO ARTEMIO B. TAN, JR.

Accused-Appellee.
x------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Re: Resolution promulgated on November 29, 2017)

Private Complainant-Appellant, through counsel, before

the Honorable Court, most respectfully avers THAT:

1. On December 22, 2017, private complainant-

appellant through counsel received a copy of this Honorable
Court’s Resolution promulgated on November 29, 2017, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.”

Private complainant-appellant humbly entreats this

Honorable Court to reconsider the afore-quoted disposition in
the interest of justice.

2. In justifying its Resolution, the Honorable Court ruled:

“Records reveal that the assailed decision was

rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. Hence, private complainant should have
filed with this Court a Petition for Review under Rule
42 of the Rules of Court, not a Notice of Appeal with
the RTC under Rule 41 of the same Rules. The
procedural infraction committed by the private
 2

complainant leaves Us no choice but to dismiss the

appeal.”1

With due respect, private complainant-appellant begs the

kind indulgence of the Honorable Court to brush aside
technicality, treat the instant appeal as a Petition for Review
under Rule 42 and resolve the instant case on the merits.

May the Honorable Court be guided by the

pronouncement of the Supreme Court in SPS. HEBER &
CHARLITA EDILLO, vs. SPS. NORBERTO & DESIDERIA
DULPINA2, to wit:

“In not a few cases, we have ruled that the right

to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due
process; it is a mere statutory privilege that may be
exercised only in the manner and strictly in accordance
with the provisions of law allowing the appeal. The
party who seeks to appeal must comply with the
requirements of the law and the rules; failure to comply
leads to the dismissal and the loss of the right to appeal.

But while we have so ruled, we recognize

nonetheless that the right to appeal is an essential part of
our system of judicial processes, and courts should
proceed with caution in order not to deprive a party of
the right to appeal. We invariably made this recognition
due to our overriding concern that every party-litigant
be given the amplest opportunity to ventilate and secure
the resolution of his cause, free from the constraints of
technicalities. This line of rulings is based, no less, on
the Rules of Court which itself calls for a liberal
construction of its provisions, with the objective of
securing for the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. In this line
of rulings, we have repeatedly stressed that litigation is
not merely a game of technicalities. The law and
jurisprudence grant to courts in the exercise of their
discretion along the lines laid down by this Court the
prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of

1
Page 4, Resolution promulgated on November 29, 2017.
2
G.R. No. 188360, January 21, 2010
 3

even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty

to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation
speedily and the parties right to an opportunity to be
heard.”

Thus, in line with the pronouncement of the High Court

in the above-mentioned case, private complainant-appellant
most respectfully calls for the liberal construction of the rules
in order that his cause can be resolved by the Honorable Court
free from the constraints of technicalities.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, private

complainant-appellant most respectfully prays for this
Honorable Court to GRANT the instant motion for
reconsideration.

Other measures of relief, just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

Bato, Leyte for Cebu City, December 28, 2017.

RANCES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Private Complainant-Appellant
Bato, Leyte

By:

ATTY. RENATO RAMON B. RANCES III

PTR No. PL-9401135 – 1/13/17, Bato, Leyte
IBP No. 1052779 - 1/09/17, Maasin City
Roll No. 58909 TIN 402-807-971-000
MCLE No. IV-0011838 -2/7/13
MCLE No. V-0008230 -5/4/15

NOTICE OF HEARING

Atty. Mamerto L. Avila, Jr.

Counsel for the Accused-Appellee
Room 201, Cebu Hallmark
179 Osmeńa Boulevard, 6000 Cebu City

Hon. Clerk of Court

Court of Appeals,
 4

Cebu City

Greetings!

Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the

foregoing motion for consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof sans
appearance of the undersigned counsel.

ATTY. RENATO RAMON B. RANCES III

Counsel for the Private Complainant-Appellant

EXPLANATION

(in accordance with Rule 11, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure)

Due to lack of personnel and considering the distance

between the office of counsel for the private complainant-
appellant and counsel for the accused-appellee, a copy of the
foregoing Motion for Reconsideration was served upon the
latter through registered mail with return card.

RENATO RAMON B. RANCES III

Copy furnished:
Atty. Mamerto L. Avila, Jr.
Counsel for the Accused-Appellee
Room 201, Cebu Hallmark
179 Osmeńa Boulevard, 6000 Cebu City
5