Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
PATEROS, BRANCH 73

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintif,
- versus -

Criminal Case No. 7080-10


For: Unlawful Arrest

PSI EDGARDO MENDOZA,et. al.,


Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


Private complainant, through undersigned private prosecutor,
respectfully moves for the reconsideration of this Honorable Courts
Order dated 22 September 2015, a copy of which was received on 9
October 2015, on the following ground:
THE ORDER DATED 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 IS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH JURISPRIDENCE AND ISSUANCES OF
THE SUPREME COURT.
Discussion
1.
In the Order dated 22 September 2014, it was held that
private complainants Manifestation dated 14 September 2015 is noted
without action on the ground that the recently promoted Judge
Marilou D. Runes-Tamang cannot take with her to her new station
the instant case.
2.
However, it is respectfully submitted that a careful
reading of A.M. No. 98-3-114-RTC, entitled Re: Cases Left Undecided
by Judge Sergio D. Mabuhay, RTC, Branch 24, Manila, and OCA

Circular No 90-2004 regarding A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC would lead to a


different conclusion.
3.
At the outset, it must be noted that before the Hon. RunesTamang was promoted, she has already resolved the instant case.
Hence, private complainant respectfully submits that she did not take
the instant case to her new station, as provided in the subject Order
dated 22 September 2015. Thus, on this score alone, private
complainant respectfully submits that the Hon. Runes-Tamangs
determination of the instant case should be upheld.
4.
Notwithstanding the foregoing and assuming arguendo
that the case is still left undecided, pars. 2, 5, and 6 of A.M. No. 04-519-SC provides:
Except as herein provided, all cases shall remain in the
branch to which these have been raffled and assigned.
Only cases that have been submitted for decision or thos
past the trial stageprior to the transfer or promotion of
the judge to which these are raffled/assigned shall be
resolved or disposed by him/her in accordance with the
guidelines herein set forth.

Should any case be left undecided by the


transferred/detailed/assigned
judge,
the
judge
conducting the inventory shall cause the issuance to the
parties of a notice of transfer/detail/assignment of the
judge to which the case had been assigned, with a
directive for the plaintiff/s to manifest, within five (5)
days from receipt of such notice, whether or not he/she
desires that the transferred judge should decide the case.
The desire of the plaintiff, who may have to have the case
decided by the new judge, shall be respected

5.
Indeed, even under par. 5 of A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC, the
default option, if no manifestation has been filed, is for the case to be

decided by the transferred judge, which, in this case, is the Hon.


Runes-Tamang.
6.
A.M. No. 98-3-114-RTC, which is the same case quoted in
this Honorable Courts Order dated 22 September, is of similar import,
to wit:

Basically, a case once raffled to a branch belongs to


that branch unless reraffled or otherwise transferred to
another branch in accordance with established procedure.
When the Presiding Judge of that branch to which a case
has been raffled or assigned is transferred to another
station, he leaves behind all the cases he tried with the
branch to which they belong. He does not take these cases
with him even if he tried them and the same were
submitted to him for decision. The judge who takes over
this branch inherits all these cases and assumes full
responsibility for them. He may decide them as they are
his cases, unless any of the parties moves that his case be
decided by the judge who substantially heard the evidence
and before whom the case was submitted for decision. If a
party therefore so desires, he may simply address his
request or motion to the incumbent Presiding Judge who
shall then endorse the request to the Office of the Court
Administrator so that the latter may in turn endorse the
matter to the judge who substantially heard the evidence
and before whom the case was submitted for decision.
This will avoid the renvoir of records and the possibility
of an irritant between the judges concerned, as one may
question the authority of the other to transfer the case to
the former. If coursed through the Office of the Court
Administrator, the judge who is asked to decide the case is
not expected to complain, otherwise, he may be liable for
insubordination and his judicial profile may be adversely
affected. Upon direction of the Court Administrator, or any
of his Deputy Court Administrators acting in his behalf,
the judge before whom a particular case was earlier
submitted for decision may be compelled to decide the
case accordingly.

7.
A.M. No. 98-3-114-RTC clearly provides that the
preference as to who shall decide case involving transfer judge who
heard all the evidence shall belong to the parties. Herein, both parties
manifested their preference to submit the case to the discretion of the
Hon. Runes-Tamang.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, private complainant


respectfully prays that this Honorable Court reverse and set aside its
Order dated 22 September 2015 for the forgoing reasons, and uphold
the preference of the parties to have the instant case determined by
the Hon. Marilou Runes-Tamang.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the circumstances, are
likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Muntinlupa City for Pateros, 19 September 2015.
FFREZNEL B. STA. ANA
Private Prosecutor
Roll of Attorneys No. 58217
PTR No. 4765952/01-29-2015/Makati
IBP No. 0994856/1-29-15/PPLM
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0019486/4-30-13
Notice and Copy furnished:
THE CITY PROSECUTOR
MTC, Pateros, Branch 73
3rd Flr., Municipal Hall Bldg., Pateros

ATTY. MAXIMIANO NARVAEZ


40th Floor PBCOM Tower
6769 Ayala Ave.
Makati City
HON. BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
G r e e t i n g s:
Please be informed that the foregoing motion shall be submitted for the
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on 29 October 2015, at 2:00
p.m.
FREZNEL B. STA. ANA

Похожие интересы