Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

10th Judicial Region
Branch 10
Malaybalay City

JOSEFA C. NAVIDAD CIVIL CASE NO. 4167-11

Plaintiff,

-Versus- For:

EDWARD CLINT L. TUAZON “ANNULMENT OF DEEDS

ET. AL.. SALE, ETC”
Defendants,
X---------------------------------------/

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Court, moves for the reconsideration of the ORDER of this
Honorable Court dated June 7, 2019 and respectfully avers:

1. Sec. 2, Rule 40 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that “[a]n

appeal may be taken within fifteen (15) days after notice to the
appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. xxxx The
period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new
trial or reconsideration. xxxx

Sec.1, Rule 37 of the said Rules also provide that:

Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion

for new trial or reconsideration. — Within the period for
taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial
court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a
new trial for one or more of the following causes materially
affecting the substantial rights of said party:
 (a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence which ordinary prudence could not have
guarded against and by reason of which such
aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his
rights; or

(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he

could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered
and produced at the trial, and which if presented
would probably alter the result.

Within the same period, the aggrieved party

may also move for reconsideration upon the
grounds that the damages awarded are excessive,
that the evidence is insufficient to justify the
decision or final order, or that the decision or final
order is contrary to law.

2. That the Plaintiff received the ORDER of this Honorable Court on

July 1, 2019, hence the last day within which the plaintiff can move
for the reconsideration of the said ORDER is on July 16, 2016.

3. That the subject ORDER stated to wit;

XXX
Perusal of the record would demonstrate that plaintiff failed to
comply with the October 30, 2017 order of the court. Such failure is
tantamount to dismissal of the case as clearly provided by the Rules.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the motion to be

proper and meritorious, the same is GRANTED. Civil Case No. 4167-
11 is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. XXX

Attached herewith is the copy of the subject Order dated October

30, 2017 hereto referred as Annex “A”. Note that in the order, it also
categorically stated that the dismissal should be regarded as an
adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice.
4. Worthwhile to mention, in the Order dated October 30, 2017,
plaintiff is given thirty (30) days within which to submit its proper
pleading in connection with the Notice of Withdrawal by defendant
Rural Bank of Cabadbaran;

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE

ORDER OF THE COURT dated October 30, 2017 and/or SUCH TYPE
OF FAILURE WOULD WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE CASE DUE TO
THE FAULT OF THE PLAINTIFF

5. Availing of their right, under Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court,

plaintiff moves for the reconsideration based on the following:

a. Verification with the Court Staff would indicate that plaintiff did
comply with the order of the Court. Records show that this
Honorable Court received a copy of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Add
Party Defendant Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC)
last November 29, 2017. Attached herewith is a copy of the plaintiff’s
pleading, hereto referred as Annex “B” and which was received by
this Honorable Court last November 29, 2017;

b. Plaintiff’s pleading clearly manifest that plaintiff does not oppose

the Notice of Withdrawal by defendant Rural Bank of Cabadbaran
and joins the said defendant in their prayer to address the business
and legal concerns to PDIC;

c. Even granting that the Plaintiff’s pleading is considered as

defective as to its legal form, then so is the notice of withdrawal
which should be in the legal form of a motion. In the same vein, the
pleading of the plaintiff should also be treated as a notice of their
non-objection to the notice of withdrawal;

d. Equally important, PDIC had the opportunity to reply the pleading

of the plaintiff;
 e. Further, assuming that the Notice of withdrawal will be treated as
a “motion”, then the non-submission of the order of the Honorable
Court to file a proper pleading in response to the said motion should
be treated as waiver to respond or to comment, hence, the motion
will be resolved as if “ex parte”. Otherwise stated, only the motion
to withdraw will be resolved and not the whole pending case;

6. With due respect to this Honorable Court, the Plaintiff with the
private complainant has been attending the scheduled hearings of
this case;

7. The order of the dismissal of this instant case was based in Sec. 3,
Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which is “due to the
fault of plaintiff”. Clearly from the above arguments, the plaintiff had
no slightest intention to disregard the order of this Honorable Court.
The plaintiff is not even negligent to follow the order this Honorable
Court. It did file a pleading in response to the Notice of Withdrawal;

8. And finally, not only that litigations should not be won based on
technicality, but in this instant case, there was no major legal
technicality that was violated by the plaintiff and clearly, none was
prejudiced.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of justice, it is

most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to RECALL the ORDER
dated June 7, 2019 and issue an ORDER for the continuation of Pre-Trial with
the PDIC’s participation.

Such other reliefs which are just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

City of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, 11 July 2019.

 LAGAMON AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
2nd Floor, Jamstar Building, corner
Judge Carillo- San isidro Sts., Brgy 5,
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon
Counsel for the private plaintiff

By:

ATTY. ADRIANO G. BAHIAN, JR.

Roll of Attorneys No. 66760
PTO (Bukidnon) PTR No. 8497964-January 3, 2019
IBP No. 62182 – Janury 4, 2019
Tax Identification Number 158-556-632
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0011667

NOTICE

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
10th Judicial Region
Branch 10
Malaybalay City

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing Formal Offer for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof.

ADRIANO G. BAHIAN, JR.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Copy furnished:

Atty. Hollis C. Monsanto

Counsel for Evelyn and Cresente Calinawan
Malaybalay City

Atty. Sharon Dablo Daral

Counsel for Edward Clint and Rubilyn Tuazon
Malaybalay City
Atty. Veronica Tongio-Igot RR: ___________________________________
Counsel for PDIC
SSSBldg, 6782 Ayala Ave.,
Cor. V. A. Rufino St., Makati City

EXPLANATION

(Pursuant to Section 11 Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Due to distance, time constraint and insufficient manpower, personal

service of this pleading to Atty. Veronica Tongio-Igot, counsel for PDIC, was
not resorted to and instead a copy of the same was sent via registered mail
with attached registry receipt to the addressee.

ATTY. ADRIANO G. BAHIAN, JR.