REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 197
LAS PINAS CITY

GREGORIO R. BARTOLO,
Plaintiff-Appellee
CV LP 07-0144
For: Collection of Sum of
Money
-versus-

SPS. DANILO AND ROSITA BILLONES

Defendants-Appelants
x------------------------------------x

MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, Defendant ROSITA BILLONES, by herself, and unto this

Honorable Court most respectfully Aver: THAT –

1. On January 8, 2008, Defendant-Appellant Rosita Billones received the

assailed Decision dated December 18,2007, the dispositive portion of which is
quoted herein as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the

court a quo is hereby modified by not including appellant DABILO
BILLONES as liable to appellee Bartolo.
Defendant-appellant ROSITA BILLONES is found liable to
pay the plaintiff-apellee GREGOTIO R. BARTOLO, the principal
amount of EIGHTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 80,000.00) plus a
monthly interest of one percent (1%) of the principal amount from
the date of receipt of extra-judicial demand on April 27,2000 until
full payment thereof.
No costs.
SO ORDERED
Done this 18th day of December 2007 at Las Pinas City

2. The main thrust of the instant Motion for Reconsideration is primarily the
errors of law and/ or facts committed by the Honorable Court in rendereing
the assailed decision.

1
 GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION

THE HONOROBLE COURT COMMITTED ERRORS OF

LAW AND/OR FACTS IN RENDERING THE ASSAILED
DECISION.

3. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, the Honorable Court erred in
appreciating the facts of the case;

Subject check was issued AFTER

the promissory notes were made and not BEFORE it.

4. The pertinent portion of the Decision states that:

“As to the allegation of defendant-appellant ROSITA BILLONES that
she signed the Promissory Note in the amount of P80,000.00 under duress,
the Court will not sustain the same. Perusing the evidence on record,
appellant Billones issued the Asiatrust Bank check no. LPS 0021528
on September 18,1999 in the amount of Php 48,000.00 as payment for
the loan amounting to P 48,000.00 covered by Promissory Note dated
July 21, 1999. The said check was issued even beyond the date of the
other Promissory Note in the amount of P 80,000.00 which was
likewise dated July 21,1999. Thus, to say that she was forced to sign
the promissory note in the amount of P 80,000.00 lacks credibility, for
she in fact issued the check in payment for the loan amount of
P 48,000.00 way before she signed the Promissory Note in the amount
of Php 80,000.00. She did not likewise alleged that the said promissory
note of Php 80,000.00 was ante-dated if any, for she did not deny her
signature thereon , only that she was forced to signed (sic) the same, after
a hearing of the criminal case filed against her , when the evidence at
hand, was contrary to her declaration. Further, she was not able to rebut
the testimony of the notary public , Atty. Rex Resuena , who notarized the
two promissory notes, that she was present when the same were notarized
by him. (Emphasis ours)”

5. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, the Honorable Court
erred in stating that “Thus, to say that she was forced to sign the
promissory note in the amount of P 80,000.00 lacks credibility,
for she in fact issued the check in payment for the loan amount
of Php 48,000.00 way before she signed the Promissory Note in

2
 the amount of Php 80,000.00 (emphasis ours)” in as much as
herein defendant-appellant issued the aforementioned check on
September 18, 1999 , that is after the questioned promissory
note dated July 21, 1999 in the amount of Php 80,000.00;

6. Perforce, it is not correct to state that herein appellant lacks

credibility because the premise of the Honorable Court is
incorrect;

7. It is a fact that the check was later issued on

September 18,1999, that is after the two (2) questioned
promissory notes dated July 21,1999 were made.

These only bolster the statements of herein accused-appellant

that the latter does not recognize the promissory note worth
Php 80,000.00. Accused-appellant only issued a check worth
Php 48,000.00 because she only recognizes the promissory note
worth Php 48,000.00.

8. In addition, if indeed herein accused really owes the plaintiff the

amount of Php 80,000.00, why then the latter did not ask for another
check for the same amount for the promissory note worth
Php 80,000.00?

“Non-allegation that promissory note was ante-dated”, based on

wrong premise and not relevant to the case at hand

9. Likewise, with all due respect, the Honorable Court erred in stating
that “She did not likewise alleged that the said promissory note
of Php 80,000.00 was ante-dated if any, for she did not deny her
signature thereon, only that she was forced to signed (sic) the
same, after a hearing of the criminal case filed against her, when
the evidence at hand, was contrary to her declaration.” for the
reason that, as above-explained , the pieces of evidence at hand are
not contrary to accused-appellant’s declaration;

3
10. The statement of the Honorable Court is incorrect because the
same was premised that the check was issued first before the
two (2) promissory notes were made which is not true as above-
explained ;

11. All of these are in consonance with the statements of herein

appellant-accused that she was forced to sign the same after a
hearing of the criminal case filed against her.

Needless to state, the court has already taken judicial

notice of the existence of the criminal case filed against herein
defendant-appellant by herein plaintiff for violation of BP 22
covering the amount of Php 48,000.00. The case was dismissed in
view of the Affidavit of Desistance executed by appellee
BARTOLO.1

Testimony of Notary Public,

not an issue

12. In addition, with all due respect, the Honorable Court erred in
stating that “ Further, she was not able to rebut the testimony of
the notary public, Atty. Rex Resuena, who notarized the two
promissory notes, that she was present when the same were
notarized by him” for the reason that, as above-explained , the
pieces of evidence at hand are not contrary to accused-appellant’s
declaration;

13. The same is not the issue. As manifested by the defendant-

appellant, she did not sign the promissory note worth Php 80, 000.00
in front of the notary public. What the defendant-appellant
acknowledges is the promissory note worth Php 48,000.00 ;

14. Again , the statement of the Honorable Court is incorrect

because the same was premised that the check was issued first
before the two (2) promissory notes were made which is not true
as above-explained ;

1
Second Paragraph , Second Page of the Decision dated December 18, 2007

4
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto
this Honorable Court that Decision of the Honorable Court dated
December 18, 2007 be reversed and set-aside and dismissing the complaint
against Defendant-appellant ROSITA BILLIONES be dismissed.
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila.
21 January, 2007

Rosita Billones

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Clerk of Court

RTC Br 197

Greetings!
Kindly submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable Court for its
consideration and approval on February 1, 2008 at 8:30 in the morning.

Rosita Billones

COPY FURNISHED AND EXPLANATION

ATTY. EDGAR ROSANA
170 Rainbow Village 3 & 4
Almanza, Las Pinas City

GREGORIO BARTOLO
L6 B6 Gloria Compound, Pilar Village
Las Pinas City

The foregoing Motion for Reconsideration is being filed via registered mail
with the Honorable Court after a copy thereof was served upon the Private
Complainant, thru counsel, via registered mail due to distance, manpower and
time constraints.