Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
-versusZOILO
BAYLON
BAYLON
and
ISABELO
Defendants.
x-----------------------x
COMMENT/ANSWER
WITH GREATEST RESPECT, Plaintiff by counsel and to this
Honorable Court, as comment/answer to Defendants Petition for Relief
from Judgment, Orders and other Proceedings, states that:
ANTECEDENTS
1. On 20 November 2014, the Honorable Court issued a
Decision, its dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff
Priscillano Espejo and against defendant Zoilo
and Isabelo Baylon as follows:
1.
2.
COMMENT/ANSWER
Petition for Relief from Judgment
Civil Case No. Br. 20-3137
4.
An award of
damages; and
5.
P10,000
as
moral
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
4. In line with the Order dated 16 March 2015, the Clerk of
Court issued a Certificate of Finality dated 16 April 2015;
COMMENT/ANSWER
Petition for Relief from Judgment
Civil Case No. Br. 20-3137
ARGUMENTS
(IN ANSWER/OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION)
THE
ORDER
DATED
16
MARCH
2015
WAS
NOT
TAKEN THROUGH FRAUD;
THE
ORDER
DATED
16
MARCH
2015
WAS
NOT
RENDERED BY FRAUD MUCH
LESS DID IT PREVENT THE
DEFENDANTS FROM TAKING
AN APPEAL TO THE 20
NOVEMBER 2015 DECISION
OF THE HONORABLE COURT.
7. At the outset, it is worth emphasizing that the records of the
case would show that the defendants and their counsel were
duly furnished of a copy of the Decision dated 20 November
2014. Fully aware of the contents and substance of the
Decision of the Honorable Court, defendants and their counsel
never filed any motion whatsoever questioning the same. On
the contrary, it was plaintiff who filed a motion nunc pro tunc
relative to the decision, which has already attained
finality, when she learned that it does not conform to the
evidence presented.
8. Again, the records would show that the defendants were duly
furnished with a copy of the motion of the of the plaintiff for
the issuance of an order nunc pro tunc for the clarification
of the Decision dated 20 November 2014, but still, they
failed to file any comment to the motion and/or appear on 23
January 2015, the schedule of the hearing of the motion;
9. The Rules are clear that a Petition for Relief may be filed from
a judgment or final order entered, or any other proceeding
taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident,
1
2
COMMENT/ANSWER
Petition for Relief from Judgment
Civil Case No. Br. 20-3137
COMMENT/ANSWER
Petition for Relief from Judgment
Civil Case No. Br. 20-3137
14.
Truth to be told the defendants were given all the
opportunity to present their claims and defenses in court but
they did not exercise diligence in pursuing their case. Their
were informed of the processes of the Honorable Court and
was also duly notified of the motions of the plaintiffs. The fact
remains that defendants received a copy of the 20 November
2014 Decision but did nothing about it, the same being, in
substance, favourable to their interest. Hence, to pass on the
blame and to allege extrinsic fraud is but unfair to their
former counsel.
15.
Simply put, the alleged non-notification of the pretrial by the Honorable Court and by their counsel is not an
extrinsic fraud contemplated by law and jurisprudence. The
petition itself is devoid of any allegation/s stating the facts
constituting the fraud committed by their former counsel to
justify the instant petition. The defendants have only
themselves to blame. They alleged no proof to the effect that
they went to their former counsel or at least to the Honorable
Court to check or verify the progress of their case.
MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION IS FILED OUT
OF TIME.
16.
The plaintiff-respondent re-pleads and all the
foregoing allegations in support of her motion to dismiss the
petition;
17.
Verily, the subject of the instant petition is the
Decision dated 20 November 2014 which was clarified by
the 16 March 2015 Order. The Decision has attained finality
after the lapse of 15 days from the time the defendants
received their copy of the same without taking any appeal
thereon. Records would reveal that it was not only the former
counsel, Atty. Gilbert Bautista who was furnished by the
Honorable Court of a copy of the Decision, but also the
defendants themselves.
18.
By filing the instant Petition for Relief from
Judgment, the defendants essentially are admitting that the
Decision dated 20 November 2014 in Civil Case No. Br. 20
3137 is already final and executory. To save themselves from
the consequences of the said decision which was merely
clarified by virtue of the Order Nunc Pro Tunc dated 16 March
2015, they filed the instant petition as a last ditch effort. But
they are mistaken. They are already time-barred.
19.
A Petition for Relief from Judgment is an equitable
remedy provided by law and the rules against a final and
executory judgement, however, it must comply with the two
5
COMMENT/ANSWER
Petition for Relief from Judgment
Civil Case No. Br. 20-3137
COMMENT/ANSWER
Petition for Relief from Judgment
Civil Case No. Br. 20-3137
By:
JONATHAN F. D. DE LA CRUZ
Roll of Attorney No. 48637
IBP Lifetime No. 013365
PTR OR No. 5720152 1/05/15, Isabela
MCLE Exemption No. VI-000902; 4-15-16
VERIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines
)
Province of Isabela
) Sc.
City of Ilagan
)
x------------------X
I, NELLY ESPEJO, whose personal circumstances has been mentioned earlier is
the same defendant-respondent who caused the preparation the foregoing
COMMENT/ANSWER, the contents of which I have read and are all true and correct
to the best of my personal knowledge and based on authentic documents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 12
August 2015 at City of Ilagan, Isabela.
NELLY ESPEJO
Affiant
Posta ID 380277
JONATHAN F. D. DE LA CRUZ