Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Sixth Judicial Region
Branch 67
Guimbal, Iloilo

JOSEPHINE ARANCILLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

Civil Case No. 377 (A)

- VERSUS -

NONY MAGNO, For: Unlawful Detainer

Defendant-Appellee.
xx------------------------------------------xx

OPPOSITION/ COMMENT TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE’S PARTIAL

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED SEPT. 3, 2013

COMES NOW the PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT by the undersigned

attorney and to the Honorable Court most respectfully asseverates that:

1. In defendant-appellee’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration

dated 03 September 2013, it took to task the Decision of the Honorable
Court on two (2) fronts, which are: (1)The Court’s ruling deleting the
award of attorney’s fees and finding that there was no forum-shopping,
and no estoppel extant in the evidence; and, (2) The Court’s inaction on
defendant’s motion to order plaintiff-appellant to restore a portion of
the disputed property to defendant-appellee, which, according to
defendant, plaintiff wrested while this case was on appeal before this
Court;

ON THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES

2. The Honorable Court was legally sound in its ruling deleting

attorney’s fees. Indeed, the settled rule is that the award of attorney’s
fees must be duly proved and should be properly discussed in the body
of the decision and cannot just magically appear in the dispositive
portion thereof. Thus, case law states that “However, with respect to the
award of attorney’s fees to respondent, we are constrained to disallow
the same as the rationale for the award was not stated in the text of
the RTC Decision but only in the dispositive portion”1.

1
Asian Construction and Development Corp., v. Lourdes K. Mendoza, GR No. 176949, June 27, 2012

Page 1 of 3
 In the now assailed decision of the court a quo, conspicuously
wanting is any discussion, much less any factual or evidentiary support
for the award of attorney’s fees to the defendant by the court a quo.
Rightly so, such award should be deleted.

ON THE REQUEST FOR RESTORATION

This was ably tackled by plaintiff-appellant in her Opposition to

said motion.

In sum, jurisprudence teaches that a party who failed to

appeal cannot seek any form of relief from the appellate court. Thus, “As
a rule, a party who did not appeal from a decision of a court cannot
obtain affirmative relief other than that granted in the appealed
decision”.2

From the foregoing discussions, the arguments in the partial

motion for reconsideration filed by defendant is specious if not totally
devoid of merit.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of the Honorable Court that it DENY for utter lack of merit defendant-
appellee’s partial motion for reconsideration.

Other reliefs just and proper are also prayed for.

Iloilo City for Guimbal, Iloilo, Philippines, 09 September 2013.

REYES and REYES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
G/F Carmelita Bldg.,
Quezon St., Iloilo City
Tel Nos. (033) 300-0081; (033) 338-2869

By:

EDUARDO T. REYES, III

2
Pagcor v. Marita A. Angara et al., GR No. 142937, July 25, 2006

Page 2 of 3
 P.T.R. NO. 4033999/ Iloilo City/ 03 January 2013
IBP No. 891215/ Iloilo City/ 07 January 2013
Attorney’s Roll No. 44832
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. IV-0001640
22 February 2011

Copy sent by registered mail to:

The Presiding Judge

Municipal Trial Court
Miagao, Iloilo

By: _______________
Date: _____________

By personal service to:

Atty. Rodolfo N. Legaspi

Counsel for the defendant
DELICANA LEGASPI NACIONGAYO ABELLAR and FERRER LAW OFFICES
Rm. 2-L, B & S Square Bldg.,
Cor. Iznart-Solis Sts., Iloilo City

By: ____________
Date: ___________

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

The filing as well as the service of this Motion to the Court are
both being done by registered mail given the distance of their location
from the Office of the undersigned counsel which renders personal filing
and service rather impracticable.

EDUARDO T. REYES, III

Page 3 of 3