Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT BRANCH 79, LAS PINAS CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, versus CRIM. CASE NO. 55325-31

FRANCISCO Y. CATIBAYAN, JR., Defendant. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

OPPOSITION
(On Defendants Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Dated August 31, 2010)
The Prosecution, through its private prosecutor, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states:

1.

On October 6, 2010, plaintiff through counsel received a copy of

defendants Motion for Reconsideration dated September 29, 2010. Honorable Judge Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa rendered an Order in the above-entitled case the dispositive portion of which reads: In view thereof, the Motion for Execution is hereby GRANTED. Let a Writ of Execution be issued to implement the 1

Decision rendered by the Court dated June 1, 2007. Likewise the Criminal Aspect of this case if accordingly REVIVED. 2. Defendant moved for the reconsideration of the Order dated

August 31, 2010 on the ground that the defendant should not be questioned for not having settled his obligation to plaintiff up to this day because of the private

complainants refusal to accept the payment in kind which have caused the delay in the settlement. (Page 3 of the Motion for Reconsideration).
3. To date, the terms and conditions of the Compromise Agreement

dated January 17, 2007 voluntarily entered into by the parties have not been complied with. The plaintiff has the right to seek the execution of the Decision as a result of the defendants failure to comply with his obligation under the said agreement. Therefore, the Honorable Court is correct in declaring that the

Decision based on the Compromise Agreement is immediately executory. (Page


2 of the Order) 4. Although it has been agreed by the parties in their Compromise

Agreement that accused shall settle his liability through assignment of credits of

Filipinas Bowling Corporation from Fil Estate Golf and Development Corporation,
a stipulation in the agreement that is significant and should not be missed provides that: in case the assignment of credits will not take place by July 30, 2007, the accused shall assume the payment of Php 684,000.00 plus 10% attorneys fees and 10% litigation expenses.

5.

Plaintiffs refusal to accept the property being tendered by the

defendant is justified. The defendant should not expect that his offer to pay his debt to the plaintiff through a parcel of land not under his name be accepted. Plaintiff cannot just accept a parcel of land named under a person different from the defendant as payment of his debt.

6.

Furthermore, the plaintiff had also given defendant multiple

opportunities to settle his obligation. In fact, plaintiff patiently dealt with the defendant and listened to all his promises of payment during a series of meetings. In these meetings, the defendant proposed to pay in three installments, showing his capacity to pay in cash. Thus, there is no need for the Motion for Consignation filed by the defendant.

7.

Lastly, allowing the defendants motion for consignation amends

the Compromise Agreement voluntarily entered by the parties and ultimately defeats the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties in the said agreement. To allow this motion is to permit the defendant to avoid his obligation to pay the plaintiff the amount of Php 684,000.00. This motion is a violation of the terms and conditions of the said agreement and is prejudicial to the plaintiff.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant be denied for utter lack of merit. The complainant likewise prays for such other measures of relief which this Honorable Office may deem just and equitable under the premises.

Las Pinas City, October 12, 2010

KHO BUSTOS MALCONTENTO ARGOSINO LAW OFFICES Unit 1103, 11th Floor, Prestige Tower Condominium Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila

Counsel for the Plaintiff

By: BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO Roll of Attorneys No. 38585 IBP No. 705057 19 January 2007/Manila IV PTR No. 3671315 19 January 2007/Pasig City

Explanation and Copy-Furnished The Honorable Clerk of Court 4

Metropolitan Trial Court- Branch 79 Las Pinas City Atty. Rodolfo S. Retazo

Counsel for the Plaintiffs


Muntinlupa City Greetings: Copy of the

foregoing

Opposition

to

Respondents

Motion

for

Reconsideration dated 12 October 2010 is being filed before the Honorable Court and served to the plaintiffs by registered mail due to the distance of the law office and the parties to be served with copies of the said Opposition.

BENEDICTO A. MALCONTENTO