Republic of the Philippines

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION

Regional Trial Court
Branch 5
Tuguegarao, Cagayan

EMELINDA D. PAGULAYAN
Plaintiff,

-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO: 7963

For: Damages

ANCAR MOTORS, INC.

Represented by its General Manager
Cesar A. Aquino
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(of the Order Dated April 28, 2015)
Defendant, through counsels, respectfully avers that:
1. The defendant, through its counsels received a copy of the
Order dated April 28, 2015, through registered mail on May 4,
2015. The first (1st) paragraph of the aforesaid order reads:
Considering the unjustified absence of the counsel for the
defendant who did not file any motion for postponement, on
motion of the plaintiff, she is hereby allowed to present her
evidence. The defendant is deemed to have waived the crossexamination of the said witness.
2. The undersigned counsels filed and sent an URGENT EXPARTE MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING on April 27, 2015,
since the defendants counsel and witnesses were informed of
an overbooking only in the late afternoon, Friday, April 24,
2015. Unfortunately, the same was only delivered to the

Honorable Court on April 29, 2015. Copies of the LBC

receipts are attached hereto as ANNEXES A up to A-2.
3. In the case of BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS versus
DOMINGO R. DANDO (G.R. No.177456; September 4, 2009),
citing Barranco v. Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems, G.R. No. 168990, 16 June 2006, the Court held:
The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be
belittled or simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures
insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of
technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the
prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the
most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both
the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties
right to an opportunity to be heard.(emphasis supplied).
4. The aforesaid case also cited Sanchez v. Court of Appeals and
it states, The Court restated the reasons that may provide
justification for a court to suspend a strict adherence to
procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or
property; (b) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact
that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby.(emphasis supplied).
5. As stated before by the Honorable Court in its order dated
June 27, 2014, the defendants Motion to Dismiss, due to the
Plaintiffs failure to file her pre-trial, was denied due to the
following reason:
This Court opines that Motion to Dismiss on the ground stated
herein, if granted result in the precipitate of loss of a partys
right to present evidence rather that dispose of the case on mere
technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties. It is more
prudent course of action for this court to afford the parties the

judicious opportunity to prove their case on the merits, if not

amicably settled.
Moreover, the court is fully aware that reglamentary periods
under the Rules of Court and procedural rules are to be strictly
observed.
However, it is equally true that law and
jurisprudence allows the relaxation of procedural rules and
flexibility in their interpretation since technicalities are not ends
in themselves but exist to protect and promote rights of litigants
PRAYER:
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that:
1. This Motion for Reconsideration be set for hearing on June 22,
2015, before the defendant presentation of evidence.
2. After notice and hearing, the defendant respectfully prays that:
2.a. The Order dated April 28, 2015 be set aside and vacated;
and
2.b. The defendant be accorded the same liberal consideration
accorded to the plaintiff, to afford the defendant to exercise its
right to cross-examine the plaintiff.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City. May 12, 2015
BIENVENIDO A. SALINAS, JR.
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Azure Business Center
No. 1197-A EDSA, Barangay Katipunan, Quezon City
Roll No.34096
PTR No. 0568863; January 5, 2015, Quezon City
I.B.P. Lifetime No.02039-Makati/01-03-01
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. IV-0018975; April 29, 2013
KRISTEN G. NOCHE
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Azure Business Center
No. 1197-A EDSA, Barangay Katipunan, Quezon City
Roll No. 57062

I.B.P. Lifetime No.925635; January 6, 2014; Quezon City

P.T.R. No. 0568864; January 5, 2015; Quezon City
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. IV-0013265; March 11, 2013
EXPLANATION
Due to time constraints, the distances involved, heavy traffic
conditions, and lack of adequate messengerial services, a copy
of this MANIFESTATION
with MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION shall be served by
registered mail/LBC upon the Plaintiff and her counsel.
Bienvenido A. Salinas, Jr.