Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
AB,
Petitioner,
GR NO. 11-2015
-versusCC,
Respondent.
/------------------------------------------------/

COMMENT
(to Petition for Review under Rule 45)
Respondent, by counsel and to this Honorable Court,
respectfully interposes his opposition to the Petition for Review filed by
Petitioner-Complainants on the ground that the arguments advanced by
petitioners are PRO-FORMA and the matters raised in said petition have
already been raised and resolved in the Resolution dated September 28,
2015.
Consequently, said petition must necessarily fail.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let us examine again the
grounds for the seeking of the appeal under Rule 45 advanced by the
petitioners.
FIRST, the reglementary period to appeal under Rule 45 is only
fifteen (15) days. Petitioner claims that the order of the court denying the
latter's motion for reconsideration was received on November 20, 2015,
however, perusal of the records indicates that in fact, petitioner received said
order of denial on November 15, 2015 as certified by the Postmaster General
of Tacloban City, hereto attached as ANNEX "A". However, petitioner filed
this instant petition only on December 5, 2015 or 5-days past the
reglementary period of 15 days.
SECOND, petitioner asserts that this appeal was resorted to as there is
no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to protect the latter's interests,
but it is clear that petitioner resorts to the same as a way of overcoming his
inability to file this petition within the reglementary period. Having failed to
file his action within the 15-day period allowed by the rules, the judgment
has already become final and executory.

P a g e | 2 of 3

THIRD, petitioner claims that substantial injustice was committed by


the trial court to the latter's prejudice. However, the records of the case
indicates that petitioner was given all the opportunity to present his case,
including the presentation of documentary and object evidence, which
however, were mere photocopies. Failure of the petitioner to present
certified true copies of the originals calls into question the veracity of the
latter's evidences.
FOURTH, petitioner's property rights were not manifestly violated as
in fact the last installment due for February 15, 2015 in the amount of PHP
1,050,000.00 was in fact paid by herein respondent to petitioner's wife, and
which the latter signed a release from the loan as evidenced by a document
dated February 13, 2015, herein attached as ANNEX "B".
WHEREFORE, the petition for review under Rule 45 should be
denied outright for lack of merit.
Tacloban City, Philippines, 5 December 2015.
Piga, Fabra and Associates
Law and Accounting Offices
Counsel for Plaintiff
T Building, J. Luna St., Tacloban City
Tel. No. (053) 321-5180/09399267777
E-mail: pfa@gmail.com

BY
ATTY. VINCENT Q. PIGA
Counsel for Respondent
Roll No. 5000
IBP No. 011 Lifetime
PTR No. 70 - 1/2/14 Leyte
MCLE Compliance IV No. 001234
Issued on January 12, 2013

P a g e | 3 of 3

Copy furnished:
Clerk of Court
Supreme Court, Manila
Registry Receipt Number: 23-11222
Date of Receipt: ______________________
Signature: __________________________
Atty. TZ
Counsel for Petitioner
J Building, Fatima Village, Tacloban City
Tacloban City
Registry Receipt Number: 23-1
Date of Receipt:___________________
Signature:_____________________