Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila ADELNA ARRANGUEZ, Petitioner, - versus LINDA LISTON and EVANGELINE SANCHEZ, Respondents. X---------------/ G.R. No. 199000 [CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 02969]

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION OF MINUTE RESOLUTION

PETITIONER, thru counsel, by way of reconsideration or clarification of the Minute Resolution, dated 28 November 2012, of the Honorable Third Division, respectfully states:

TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION

1. That on 28 November 2012, the Honorable Third Division rendered a Minute Resolution of the instant case, the contents of which is hereunder quoted in full, to wit: G.R. No. 199000 (Adelna Arranguez vs. Linda Liston and Evangeline Sanchez). Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, as well as the comment of respondents thereon and the reply of petitioner to said comment, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to show any reversible error in the challenged judgment as to warrant the exercise of the Courts discretionary appellate jurisdiction. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per
1 | Page

Special Order No. 1360 dated 19 November 2012; Leonardo-De Castro, J., acting Member in lieu of Justice Velasco, Jr., who is on official leave, per Special Order No.1361 dated 19 November 2012). 2. That the above-quoted Minute Resolution of the Honorable Third Division was received by the undersigned counsel on 17 JANUARY 2013. 3. Petitioner has FIFTEEN (15) DAYS from receipt thereof, or until 01 FEBRUARY 2013 within which to seek reconsideration or clarification of the aforesaid Minute Resolution. 4. Hence, this motion for reconsideration or clarification is filed within the reglementary period.

GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION

5. The November 28, 2012 Minute Resolution of the Honorable Third Division should be reconsidered or clarified on the following grounds, to wit: The rationale in denying the petition for review on certiorari is unconstitutional as it does not state its legal basis, in clear violation of Section 14, Article VIII, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Petitioner is entitled to a categorical ruling on the question of law, that is, whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the questioned Amicable Settlement, which was enforced in an ordinary action for recovery of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court, instead of an execution proceedings before the City Court pursuant to Sections 416 & 417 of R.A. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991).
2 | Page

DISCUSSION
The rationale in denying the petition for review on certiorari is unconstitutional as it does not state its legal basis, in clear violation of Section 14, Article VIII, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. -----------------------------6. The law in point is hereunder quoted to wit: Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefore. [Article VIII, 1987 Constitution] 7. The foregoing constitutional proscription is reinforced by the Rules of Court, in - - - SECTION 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. --- A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court. 8. Thus, the Supreme Court, in REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF TAMBULIG AND THE 11TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF MAHAYAG-DUMINGAG-JOSEFINA, BOTH IN ZAMBOANGA

3 | Page

DEL SUR1, found respondent Judge Salvanera guilty of gross inefficiency, gross ignorance of the law, and violations of pertinent administrative circulars of the Court, which merit disciplinary sanction, for his rendering of a one-page decision dated 25 March 2004 without stating the facts and the law on which it was based in violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides: No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court also requires that a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court. This requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached. It is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.2 9. In fact, it is not only judgments which must distinctly and clearly state the facts and the law upon which they are based. Under Section 3, Rule 16, of the Rules of Court, as amended, it is also required that resolutions disposing of a motion to dismiss shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore. Sec. 3. Resolution of motion. After the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading. The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable.

1
2

A.M. MTJ-05-1573. October 12, 2005.

Yao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132428, 24 October 2000, 344 SCRA 202, 219 .

4 | Page

In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore. [Underscoring, OURS] 10. This requirement proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing a motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Such cavalier dispositions can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the higher court called upon to resolve the same, usually on certiorari.3 11. As the Supreme Court said: We have admonished the trial courts not to issue a minute order or resolution like the one specified above. A trial court should state in its order the reasons for the dismissal of the complaint so that when the order is appealed, the appellate court can readily determine from a casual perusal thereof whether there is a prima facie justification for the dismissal. 4 Under Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, we require that resolutions disposing of a motion to dismiss shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore, thus: Sec. 3. Resolution of motion. After the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading. The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable. In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore. 12. With all due respect, the Minute Resolution in the instant case, dated 28 November 2012, fell short of the required constitutional standard for it leaves the petitioner in the dark as to how it was reached. It only says that the petition failed to show any reversible error in the challenged judgment.
3 4

Regalado, Vol. I, Remedial Law Compendium, p. 260. Continental Bank v. Tiangco, G.R. No. 50480, December 14, 1979, 94 SCRA 715.

5 | Page

Petitioner is entitled to a categorical ruling on the question of law, that is, whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the questioned Amicable Settlement, which was enforced in an ordinary action for recovery of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court, instead of an execution proceedings before the City Court pursuant to Sections 416 & 417 of R.A. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991). -----------------------------13. To stress, the instant petition is anchored on the argument that the Court of Appeals wrongly applied SECTIONS 416 AND 417 OF R.A. 7160, because the said law apply only to actions for enforcement of Barangay Amicable Settlement in the city or municipal court. [MA. TERESA VIDAL, ET AL., -versus- MA. TERESA O. ESCUETA, REPRESENTED BY HERMAN O. ESCUETA; G.R. No. 156228. December 10, 2003]. It is not applicable herein because the action originates from the Regional Trial Court which has no jurisdiction to entertain actions for enforcement of barangay amicable settlements. 14. Not being an action for enforcement of amicable settlement, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner Adelna Arranguez is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of R.A. 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). 15. The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals, which is found on pages 9 and 10 of the assailed decision, clearly speaks of the fact that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the law in the instant case. After a careful examination of the parties respective stand, We hold that pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of RA 7160 (The New Local
6 | Page

Government Code of 1991), in relation to Article 2037 of the Civil Code, plaintiffs-appellees had sufficiently established, with preponderance of evidence, their claim that defendant-appellant Adelna is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement. X x x x x x x . . . . . . . . The plaintiffsappellees are pursuing the agreement that was stated in the amicable settlement, that is why the complaint was focused on the execution of the agreement and not for recovery of sum of money. 16. Verily, the Honorable Court of Appeals missed the law when it failed to recognize the proscription that actions for the enforcement of barangay amicable settlements are cognizable only by the municipal or city courts. 17. Therefore, it is our most respectful submission that petitioner cannot be held liable under the said Amicable Settlement because it was not enforced before the Municipal or City Court as mandated under Sections 416 & 417 of R.A. 7160.

PRAYER
W H E R E F O R E , petitioner most respectfully
prays that the instant motion be GIVEN DUE COURSE, and that after judicial review, the Honorable Supreme Court vacate and reverse the assailed Minute Resolution dated 28 November 2012, and render a new judgment granting the Petition for Review on Certiorari, and to order the dismissal of the original complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Cebu City, for failure of respondents to prove their claim by preponderance of evidence. Other just and equitable circumstances are also prayed for. reliefs under the

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Mandaue City [for Manila], Philippines.

7 | Page

31 January 2013.

NILO G. AHAT
Counsel for Petitioner Attorney's Roll No. 42349 * May 9, 1997 MCLE Compliance No. IV-1008 * Feb, 14, 2011 IBP O.R. No. 799890 * Bohol Chapter * Dec. 31, 2012 PTR No. A4995820 * Mandaue City * Jan. 04, 2013 #8 Osmena Village, M. L. Quezon Avenue Maguikay, 6014 Mandaue City Email: attyahatnilog@hotmail.ph Tel. 344-2858; 354-8338

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) IN THE CITY OF MANDAUE ) S.S. JUSTIFICATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, ROEL O. OMOLON, of legal age, under oath, depose and state: That in order to comply with the requirements of the Rules Of Court, specifically on the filing and service of pleadings, I served a copy of the Motion For Reconsideration or Clarification of Minute Resolution, in the above-captioned case, to each of the following parties by REGISTERED MAIL: Atty. BONIFACIO L. VALENCIA Counsel for Respondents Room 308, Cherry Court, Gen. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City BY REGISTERED MAIL PER: REG. REC. #_____________ MAILED ON ______________ MAILED AT ______________

BY REGISTERED MAIL PER: Hon. PRESIDING JUDGE REG. REC. #_____________ RTC Branch 57 MAILED ON ______________ C.J. Fernan Palace of MAILED AT ______________ Justice Capitol, 6000 Cebu City

That proof of mailing is indicated on the appropriate space opposite the respective names of the said parties.
8 | Page

That service was done by registered mail due to the considerable distance involved coupled with lack of material time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this _____th day of FEBRUARY 2013 in Mandaue City, Philippines. ROEL O. OMOLON Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this TH ____ day of FEBRUARY 2013 in Mandaue City, Philippines. Doc. No. ______; Page No. ______; Book No. ______; Series of 2 0 1 3

COPY FURNISHED: Atty. BONIFACIO L. BY REGISTERED MAIL VALENCIA PER: Counsel for Respondents REG. REC. #_____________ Room 308, Cherry Court, MAILED ON ______________ Gen. Maxilom Avenue MAILED AT ______________ 6000 Cebu City ________________________________ __________________________ Hon. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C.J. Fernan Palace of Justice BY REGISTERED MAIL PER: REG. REC. #_____________
9 | Page

Capitol, 6000 Cebu City

MAILED ON ______________ MAILED AT ______________

10 | P a g e