Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

TWENTIETH (18h) DIVISION

VERONICA S. MATE, ET
AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

-versus-
CA G.R. CV NO. 45235

DINO D. RAMONIDA and

ALLAN S. LAURO,
Defendants-Appellees,
x-------------------------------------x

COMMENTS
TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE DECISION PROMULGATED 03 SEPTEMBER 2010

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, by counsel, respectfully state:

THAT---

1. The Motion for reconsideration of plaintiffs-appellants is a

REHASH of the same arguments earlier raised in their previous
pleadings that the court a quo should have found appellee Lauro
guilty of negligence.

2. In their appeal brief, they based their argument on the varied

testimony of appellee Lauro. However, the Honorable Appellate Court
rightly observed that:

“Appellants, however, were taking the testimony of

Lauro out of context. They took bits and pieces of the
statements, omitting those that were contrary to their
position.” (Decision, 3 September 2010par. 1, page 4)

3. This time, they are utilizing the testimony of appellee’s

witness, Gracia A. Lopez, whom they earlier tried to impeach
ironically as “incompetent”. (vide: Decision, ibid. page 9) To borrow the
words of the Honorable Court, they are also taking the testimony of
(Lopez) out of context, taking bits and pieces of her statements,
omitting those that are contrary to their position.
 2

4. It is respectfully submitted that the issue of negligence has

been judiciously reviewed and resolved by this Honorable Appellate
Court, which ruled that “the appellants cannot recover damages from
appellees, for when a plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.”
(Decision, ibid., page 12)

5. With the affirmation in toto by the Appellate Court of the

decision of the court a quo dated 22 September 2004, it clearly
showed that there was no grave abuse of discretion or serious error
that can be attributed to the court a quo for dismissing the case for
want of evidence to prove a cause of action and declaring that the
incident was completely accidental and without the fault of the
defendants.

6. Thus, stubborn repetition of the same arguments by the

appellants in this Motion is simply begging off the questions again.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration of the
appellants as there is no cogent reason to disturb its DECISION
sought to be reconsidered.

Tacloban City for Cebu City. 21 February 2012.

JASON G. ELLADO
Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Roll No. 50787
IBP Lifetime No. 01773; 3-24-11; Leyte Chapter
PTR No. 8476423; 1-4-16; Tacloban City
MCLE Compliance No. V-0054253; 7-6-12

COPY FURNISHED:

Atty. Mitchelle May A. Calades

Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Appellants
143 Del Pilar St., Tacloban City

The Hon. Presiding Judge

RTC. Br. 6
Tacloban City