You are on page 1of 12

REACTION PAPER

(ALTENATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION)

GROUP 4
1. Acasio, Paul Jason G.
2. Lingating, Sherwin T.
3. Semprun, Mary Tweetie Antonette
4. Wong, Meriam Rika R.
CIVIL CASE NO. 7167
Plaintiff: LOURDES LAUTA
Defendant: ROSITA GOMOLON, et.al.
Mediator: Genedito J. Benitez
Nature of the Case: Declaration of Ownership and Others

BRIEF BACKGROUND

Defendant, Rosita Gomolon, owned 8,019 square meters of land situated at


Galas, Dipolog City. 2,015 square meters of the land was sold by Mrs. Gomolon to
Dr. Oswaldo J. Lamdag, a resident of Galas, Dipolog City. Upon full payment of
the land sold, Dr. Lamdag, built fence around the area he bought.

Herein plaintiff, Lourdes Lauta, went on to counterclaim the fenced lot and
claimed that she is the legal owner of the land. The contended lot was purchased
by their family in early 1940’s. Furthermore, she contends that the true lot owned
by Mrs. Gomolon is the one situated at the back, which is lot 1274, and not the one
that is situated along the Highway of Galas, Dipolog City.

Lauta, filed a case of Forcible Entry against Dr. Lamdag before the court for
refusing to vacate the lot and to stop the construction of a new establishment.
Plaintiff also filed a case for Declaration of Ownership and Recovery of Possession
against Rosita Gomolon.

Judge Vasquez ruled in favor of the Defendant, Rosita Gomolon, after a


Certificate of Title was shown establishing true ownership of the lot. Plaintiff
appealed but was subsequently dismissed. Thus, this case was forwarded for
Mediation.

Dates of Mediation
First Mediation: January 26, 2018
Second Mediation: February 6, 2018
What transpired during the Mediation?

On January 26, 2018, the first mediation proceeding was conducted. Both
parties argued that they owned lot 1274. Lourdes Lauta insisted that the lot owned
by Rosita Gomolon is Lot 1271. Defendant denied as such and said that lot 1271
(the back portion) is the area owned by Plaintiff which they bought from
Frankilino Castillon—the in-law of herein Defendant.

Both parties did not settle but agreed to meet once more on February 6,
2018. During the second mediation proceedings, defendant and plaintiff agreed
that the case should be brought back to court for trial to determine the legality of
the claims and ownership.

Was there a settlement?

No, there was no settlement of the dispute.

Reasons:

Both parties insisted ownership of the contested land. Both have also
presented documents to support their claim.

REACTION

Factors that caused the failure of mediation:

Both parties were insistent as to the version of their retelling of events with
regard to the acquisition and selling of land in the past. They presented valid
documents to claim ownership. The two parties agreed to proceed for trial. Since
the dispute involves real property, specifically, land ownership, it is impossible to
decide the case through mediation. The intervention of the court is necessary to
determine ownership.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. B-41684; B-41685; B-41686
Complainant: Rural Bank of Katipunan, represented by Ardee Quiven J. Castillon
and Abner V. Laher
Accused: Carvin C. Marabulas
Mediator: Col. Aquilino T. Garate, Ret.
Nature of the Case: Violation of BP 22 on Bouncing Checks

BRIEF BACKGROUND

In December 2012, accused, Carvin Marabulas, obtained a loan from the


Rural Bank of Katipunan (RBK) money amounting to Php 100,000.00 which is
supposed to be payable in twelve (12) months. The loan became due and
demandable on September 2013 but accused failed to pay the loan in the agreed
deadline. After 2013, the whereabouts of Marabulas became unknown to the
Complainant Bank.

Almost 4 years later, the accused was found and reprimanded to pay his
obligation. The accused issued a check as payment for his loan but upon
presentment of the instrument it was subsequently dishonored. Hence, the case for
the Violation of BP 22 on Bouncing Checks.

Dates of Mediation
First Mediation: January 31, 2018
Second Mediation: February 2, 2018
Third Mediation: February 6, 2018

What Transpired during the Mediation?

On January 31, 2018, parties met for the first time to discuss the matters
regarding the case filed against the accused. During the proceedings, complainant
Rural Bank of Katipunan (RBK) presented the monetary liability incurred by the
accused including his principal loan.

The information are as follows:


Principal Loan: Php 100,000.00
Total Claim: 211,618.17 which includes interest and surcharges.

The accused appealed for the reduction of amount to be paid by reducing the
surcharge payable. The accused sought to reduce half of the surcharge which
amounts to almost Php 20,000.00.

Upon deliberation, the mediator suggested that the request must be


communicated to the Bank concern to come up with better terms and conditions for
settlement.

On February 2, 2018, parties met again with the approved settlement


between the Bank and the accused.

Terms of Settlement:
1. Private complainant waives a portion of the surcharge payable for
Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Six Hundred and 17/100 pesos (Php
19,840.92)
2. Both parties have agreed that defendant shall pay his obligation for
Eighteen Months (18 months) at Ten Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four
and 30/100 pesos (10,654.30) equal monthly installments which shall
commence on February 25, 2018 until the latter shall be able to pay in
full on July 25, 2019.
3. Accused t agrees to pay the plaintiff the remaining amount equivalent to
One Hundred Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven and
25/100 (Php 191, 777.25) as payment of the former’s loan which include
the principal interest and surcharges, attorney’s fees and other costs
incurred in filing of this instant case.
4. Should the Accused fails to pay one scheduled monthly payment for no
justifiable reason, the complainant bank shall have the option to disregard
this settlement and proceed with the hearing of the Criminal Case.

On February 6, 2018, the parties met for the last time to sign the
Compromise Agreement which drafted by the Mediator as terms for the agreed
settlement of the case. The Compromise Agreement contains 11 terms that must be
followed by accused which also includes the terms contained in the settlement
between Rural Bank of Katipunan and Carvin Marabulas,

Was there a settlement?

Yes. Parties agreed to settle the case amicably.

Reasons:

The mediator suggested a win-win situation for both parties. The suggested
reduction of surcharges is one thing beneficial to the accused while at the same
time not entirely a total loss on the part of the complainant. During the mediation,
complainant said that the whereabouts of the accused were not known. The
accused have said nothing else but apologized and admit to the mistake. Both
parties were calm during the proceedings and gave each side to be heard for
whatever reason and causes they have.

REACTION:

Factors that led to the settlement of the dispute:

Both parties were calm during the conduct of the proceedings. The parties made
clear their position in the proceedings as well as their requests and demands. Both
parties agreed to a settlement and the reduction of surcharges. They also signed a
Compromise Agreement which contains all the terms that they have agreed prior to
the signing of the Compromise Agreement.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. A-55567
Complainant: Rodrigo E. Kwan
Accused: Nida J. Espinosa
Mediator: Gina B. Bazan
Nature of the Case: Estafa

BRIEF BACKGROUND

Complainant, Rodrigo E. Kwan, has been in lumber business for 57 years


already. He is famous for being kind and generous to those who need his help.
Accused, Nida Espinosa and his husband borrowed money from the complainant
amounting to approximately Php 200,000.00.

According to their terms, the fulfillment of the debt shall not be through a
legal tender but in kind, particularly the product being sold by the spouses
Espinosa—lumber product.

Spouses Espinosa failed to deliver their products for 1 year after their license
has not been approved due to the temporary closure of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). A series of unfortunate
circumstances also occurred during the course of 1 year such as the damage caused
on their Elf which they primarily used to transport the lumbers; the chemotherapy
that his husband had to undergo to survive cancer; the temporary suspension of Mr.
Kwan’s Mapang Branch which is most accessible to the spouses; and the payment
for caesarian operation of her daughter.

Complainant agreed to help spouses Espinosa by providing assistance of his


men for the ocular inspection. In return, complainant, asked that the necessary
papers must be complied first so the ocular inspection will be pushed through.

Dates of Mediation
First Mediation: January 26, 2018
Second Mediation: February 2, 2018
Third Mediation: February 7, 2018
Fourth Mediation: February 15, 2018
Fifth Mediation: February 20, 2018

What transpired during Mediation?

During the first mediation, the parties laid down the conditions and the terms
of agreement. Mr. Kwan wanted to have the obligation fully compensated by
delivery of lumbers. The spouses Espinosa said they have already purchased lots
where they can cut the trees and be delivered to Mr. Kwan. All the requirements
were already set such as the Tax Declaration. The spouses Espinosa, requested
help from Mr. Kwan because they need financial assistance for the survey of the
trees and payment for labor. Mr. Kwan offered to send one of his people to do the
survey and let the spouses complete the requirements for the permit.

The following week, on the second mediation proceeding, it was revealed


that the surveyors were not able to complete the survey of the area. Only one area
was surveyed. The surveyors were not able to visit the other sites because the
requirements were not completed. The spouses Espinosa asked for an extension
because they had predicaments during the accomplishment of the requirements
which includes the lack of money. The parties agreed to re-schedule the mediation
proceedings the following week. The third mediation proceeding was re-scheduled
because parties were not able to attend.

On the fourth and last mediation proceeding, still the survey of the area was
not completed. The same reason was accounted for. Spouses Espinosa offered their
forward truck as part payment of their loan and shall continue to deliver their
lumber products to fulfill the remaining amount of the loan. Mr, Kwan was initially
hesitant as he already had a few trucks he can use. Spouses Espinosa tried to
convince Mr. Kwan to accept the forward truck as part payment of their obligation
explaining that it would be impossible for them to deliver the required number of
lumber products for the time being and fulfill the terms of their agreement in
paying for the loaned money.

The parties decided to settle the case amicably. Thus, the terms of agreement
mentioned herein are as follows:
1. The Accused offered their vehicle as payment of her account;
2. The Accused shall execute and provide a Deed of Absolute Sale of the
said vehicle to transfer the complainant’s name;
3. Complainant Kwan shall provide an acknowledgement receipt as full
payment to the Defendant;
4. Complainant Kwan shall execute an Affidavit of Desistance for the
Dismissal of the case upon perfection of the conditions stated in the
Compromise Agreement.

Was there a settlement?

Yes. Both parties agreed to settle the case amicably.

Reasons:

The reasons hereunder contributed to the settlement of the case:

1. That both parties realized that it would be impossible to accomplish all


the DENR requirements for the approval of their permit for lumber
operation and transport within 1 month before the case be returned to the
regular court;
2. That the mediation proceedings have been repeatedly re-scheduled but
the reasons of the spouses of not being able to fulfill the obligation are
altogether the same;
3. That the lack of lumber products and finances left the spouses Espinosa
no choice but to offer their forward truck to partially fulfill the obligation
and pay the remaining obligation with lumber products upon completion
of the DENR requirements;
4. That the repetitive mediation proceedings proved to be tedious and time
consuming for both parties as evidenced by their absence during the 3 rd
mediation proceeding.
REACTION

Factors that led to the settlement of the dispute:

Both parties were calm all throughout the mediation proceedings especially
Mr. Kwan. He was always considerate and understanding about the spouses
Espinosa’s predicaments while completing the requirements to obtain their license.
He even provided them pieces of advice on what to do in order to fasten the
accomplishment of their license.

On the part of the spouses, they were given enough time before the case was
instituted. They failed to deliver their lumber products for one year and were not
able to provide sufficient reason of their failure other than the personal problems
they were dealing in their family and their business license. Even during the
mediation proceedings, the Mr and Mrs. Espinosa were given enough time to have
the lumber area to be surveyed and yet they were not able to provide other areas
that would have constitute the total amount of their obligation.

In this case, Mr. Kwan has already given ample time for the spouses to do
whatever they need to do. Mr. and Mrs. Espinosa should have exhausted all their
efforts since during mediation they made mentioned that everything they need was
already prepared.
CIVIL CASE NO. 7206
Plaintiff: Sps. Fernando L. Dionson
Respondent: Heirs of Lourdes Sagaral Tingas
Mediator: Thalma Sorronda
Nature of the Case: Specific Performance

Brief background of the case:

This case is one for the specific performance and damages.

Petitioner Dionson’s mother, named Dory, bought a parcel of lot with a size
of 131 square meters from defendants’ mother, named Lourdes, with only the
thumb mark of the latter to prove the alleged sale of the parcel of lot. Afterwards,
another sale was made to a different buyer, which is the cause for the petitioner’s
filing of the case for specific performance.

Dates of mediation:
February 2, 2018
February 13, 2018

What transpired during mediation?

During the mediation, there was a reiteration of the issues tackled in their
previous mediations which involved the size of the disputed land being sought
upon by the petitioner. In the case, the defendants acknowledged the existence of
the parcel of land (131 square meters) being sought after by the petitioner, but
denied the petitioners’ claim that it was part of the parcel of lot that they have
purchased from the defendants’ mother.

The petitioner claims that the defendants’ mother placed her thumb mark as
proof of her authorization for the land to be sold, although the petitioners were
unable to produce this document. The defendants denied knowledge of this.

Due to the repetition of previous issues involved that the mediator already
deemed not necessary to the present meeting and to prevent any heated arguments,
the mediator suggested that the parties come up with a solution to their problem.

The parties have already agreed to a plan which involved an extrajudicial


settlement between the petitioner and to the person to whom the double sale was
made. For the costs of the expenses that would be incurred once they would start
processing the payment of taxes and compliance with other paperworks to settle
the ownership of the land in dispute.

Was there a settlement? If none, include in your remarks that the case was
sent back to court for further proceedings

No, there was no settlement. In the previous (4 th meeting) mediation, the


parties were able to come up with a possible solution as to how the expenses will
be shared by them. But, in the next meeting, they were not able to agree with each
other as to the costs, which was the reason why the last mediation failed and their
case was sent back to court.

Reasons:

The parties had a disagreement as to the costs of the expenses that would be
incurred if they agreed to an extrajudicial settlement.

REACTION:

Both parties were calm during both mediations that we observed but were hard
on their assertions and were eventually not able to meet in between. Relevant but
unnecessary issues were brought up repeatedly, to which the mediator was able to
detect and gave instructions to the parties that it would not be helpful for them
since it will only lead to a possible heated argument. Both parties were insistent as
to the version of their stories. Both parties agreed to proceed for trial.

You might also like