Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila ADELNA ARRANGUEZ, Petitioner, - versus LINDA LISTON and EVANGELINE SANCHEZ, Respondents. X---------------/ G.R. No. 199000 [CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 02969]

REPLY
PETITIONER, thru counsel, by way of reply to the comment of respondents, respectfully states: 1. That respondents raised the following counter-arguments in

their comment, to wit: FIRST. That the due execution and authenticity of the compromise agreement in the Barangay was fully established before the trial court; SECOND. That the monetary liability of petitioner to the respondents had been clearly proven before the trial court in addition to the compromise agreements;

1 | Page

THIRD. Traverse to respondents position that the joinder of the claim of respondent Evangeline Sanchez as co-plaintiff in the trial court violates the rule on permissive joinder of parties. IN REPLY TO THE FIRST COUNTERARGUMENT. X- - - - - - - - - - - -/ 2. It may not be amiss to stress at the outset that the instant

petition is anchored on the argument that the Court of Appeals wrongly applied SECTIONS 416 AND 417 OF R.A. 7160, because the said law apply only to actions for enforcement of Barangay Amicable Settlement in the city or municipal court. [MA. TERESA VIDAL, ET AL., -versus- MA. TERESA O. ESCUETA, REPRESENTED BY HERMAN O. ESCUETA; G.R. No. 156228. December 10, 2003]. It is not applicable herein because the action originates from the Regional Trial Court which has no jurisdiction to entertain actions for enforcement of barangay amicable settlement. 3. Not being an action for enforcement of amicable settlement,

the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner Adelna Arranguez is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of R.A. 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991). 4. The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals, found on pages

9 and 10 of the assailed decision, which is likewise quoted in

2 | Page

respondents comment, clearly speaks of the fact that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the law in the instant case. After a careful examination of the parties respective stand, We hold that pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of RA 7160 (The New Local Government Code of 1991), in relation to Article 2037 of the Civil Code, plaintiffs-appellees had sufficiently established, with preponderance of evidence, their claim that defendantappellant Adelna is liable on her obligation stated in the amicable settlement. X x x x x x x . . . . . . . . The plaintiffs-appellees are pursuing the agreement that was stated in the amicable settlement, that is why the complaint was focused on the execution of the agreement and not for recovery of sum of money. 5. Verily, the Honorable Court of Appeals is of the erroneous

impression that the action before the Regional Trial Court was an enforcement of amicable settlement. So to speak, the Court of Appeals missed the law when it failed to recognize the proscription that actions for the enforcement of barangay amicable settlements are cognizable only by the municipal or city courts. 6. Thus, if we have to toe the line of the Honorable Court of

Appeals ruling, it would come out that the proceeding before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 57 was null and void for lack of jurisdiction. 7. But with all due deference maintained, the action filed by

respondents before the Regional Trial Court can never be one for
3 | Page

enforcement of amicable settlement, but was an ordinary civil action for recovery of sum of money. 8. That being an ordinary civil action for recovery of sum of

money, the cause of action herein is not the Amicable Settlement, but the sum of money which is supposedly collectible from petitioner. 9. Therefore, this being an ordinary civil action for sum of

money before the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals cannot invoke Section 416 of R.A. 7160, in order to accord the status of finality of the questioned amicable settlement executed before the Barangay Lupon. 10. Be that as it may, respondents counter-argument that the authenticity and due execution of the compromise agreement was fully established before the trial court is of no moment because the Supreme Court does not review questions of fact. What is

reviewable here is the question of whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the said Amicable Settlement, pursuant to Sections 416 and 417 of R.A. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991). 11. And it is our most respectful submission that petitioner cannot be held liable under the said Amicable Settlement because

4 | Page

it was not enforced before the Municipal or City Court as mandated under Section 417 of R.A. 7160. IN REPLY TO THE SECOND COUNTERARGUMENT. X- - - - - - - - - - - -/ 12. That contrary to respondents impression, petitioner is not asking the Supreme Court to review factual matters. Instead,

petitioner is asking the Supreme Court to review a truly germane question of law, that is, whether or not petitioner can be held liable under the questioned Amicable Settlement, which was enforced in an ordinary action for recovery of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court, instead of an execution

proceedings before the City Court pursuant to Sections 417 of R.A. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991). 13. Thus, petitioner is not asking the Honorable Supreme Court to review the evidence, but to apply the law of evidence to the set of facts borne out in the records of the instant case. IN REPLY TO THE THIRD COUNTERARGUMENT. X- - - - - - - - - - - -/ 14. That petitioner maintains that respondent Evangeline

Sanchez claim against the petitioner did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transaction as the one which petitioner had with Linda Liston. Also there is neither
5 | Page

commonality of law nor fact between respondents Evangeline Sanchez and Linda Liston. And more so, Evangeline Sanchez

claim is way below the jurisdictional amount cognizable by this Honorable Court. 15. Well-settled is the rule that the joinder of parties is merely permissive, that is, it may be possible only under the following circumstances, to wit: (1) The right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions; (2) There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and, (3) Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue.1 16. Having failed to satisfy the foregoing requisites, the joinder of Evangeline Sanchez is, therefore, improper.

PRAYER
W H E R E F O R E, petitioner prays in reiteration that
the instant petition be GIVEN DUE COURSE, and that after judicial review, the Honorable Supreme Court vacate and reverse the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and order the dismissal of the original complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Cebu City, for failure to prove their claim by preponderance of evidence.
1

Section 6, Rule 3, Rules of Civil Procedure (1997)

6 | Page

Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are also prayed for. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Mandaue City [for Manila], Philippines. 24 August 2012.

NILO G. AHAT
Counsel for Petitioner Attorney's Roll No. 42349 * May 9, 1997 MCLE Compliance No. IV-1008 * Feb, 14, 2011 IBP O.R. No. 799700 * Bohol Chapter * Dec. 01, 2011 PTR No. MC0252673 * Mandaue City * Jan. 04, 2012 #8 Osmena Village, M. L. Quezon Avenue Maguikay, 6014 Mandaue City Email: attyahat@yahoo.com Tel. 344-2858; 354-8338

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) IN THE CITY OF MANDAUE ) S.S. JUSTIFICATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, ROEL O. OMOLON, of legal age, under oath, depose and state: That in order to comply with the requirements of the Rules Of Court, specifically on the filing and service of pleadings, I personally served a copy of the REPLY, in the above-captioned case, to each of the following parties: Atty. BONIFACIO VALENCIA Counsel for Respondents Room 308, Cherry Court, Gen. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City L. BY PERSONAL SERVICE:

BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Hon. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C.J. Fernan Palace of Justice Capitol, 6000 Cebu City
7 | Page

That proof of service is indicated on the appropriate space opposite the respective names of the said parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this _____th day of SEPTEMBER 2012 in Mandaue City, Philippines. ROEL O. OMOLON Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____TH day of SEPTEMBER 2012 in Mandaue City, Philippines. Doc. No. ______; Page No. ______; Book No. ______; Series of 2 0 1 2

COPY FURNISHED: Atty. BONIFACIO L. VALENCIA Counsel for Respondents Room 308, Cherry Court, Gen. Maxilom Avenue 6000 Cebu City BY PERSONAL SERVICE:

__________________________________ ____________________________ _ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Hon. PRESIDING JUDGE RTC Branch 57 C.J. Fernan Palace of Justice
8 | Page

Capitol, 6000 Cebu City

9 | Page