You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

TWENTIETH (20th) DIVISION

SEGUNDINA N. DELOS
SANTOS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

-versus-
CA G.R. CV NO. 00474

RODOLFO PFLEIDER
and DARIO SALDANA
CAYANONG,
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 Cayanong guilty of negligence.

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


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

“Appellants, however, were taking the


testimony of Cayanong 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)
2

3. This time, they are utilizing the testimony of


appellee’s witness, Crisanta Obispo Arancina, 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 (Arancina) out of
context, taking bits and pieces of her statements, omitting
those that are contrary to their position.

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
3

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 2011.

LEO S. GIRON
Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City
Roll No. 37379
IBP Lifetime No. 00733
PTR No. 7018346; 1-3-11; Tacloban City
MCLE Compliance No. III-0006315; 11-23-09

COPY FURNISHED: Reg. Mail with Return Card

Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr.


Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Appellants
2543 Naval, Biliran

The Hon. Presiding Judge


RTC. Br. 16
Naval, Biliran

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

This Comment is being filed with this Honorable Court,


and copies thereof are furnished to the opposing counsel and
RTC Br. 16, Naval, Biliran by registered mail in lieu of
personal service due to distance, registry receipts hereto
attached as proof of service.

LEO S. GIRON

You might also like