You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD


(DARAB)
542 Juana Street, Pala-o, Iligan City

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR

HILARION T. FELICIANO and


SONS, INC. as represented by its
General Manager, ROWENA
ANNIE F. TUMULA,
Petitioner,
DARAB CASE NO. X-1770-LN-
-versus- 2016

ANACLETO BARRECUATRO, FOR: CONSIGNATION OF


CLEMENTE FABROA, LOLITA PAYMENT OF DISTURBANCE
GONGOB, SLAVADOR IGLUPAZ, COMPENSATION, APPLICATION
NARCISO SOLATORIO, ANGELO OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
VERANO and CORNELIA ORDER AND/OR PERMANENT
VERANO, INJUNCTION WITH DAMAGES
Respondents. AND EJECTMENT
X----------------------------------------------/

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


The Respondents, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Labor Arbiter, most respectfully submit this, most respectfully
states that:

1. On June 17, 2016, the office of herein undersigned received from


the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR a copy of the DECISION
dated June 10, 2016.

2. In the said decision, the OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL


ADJUDICATOR granted the petition for consignation of herein Petitioner and
ordered and directed herein Respondents Ejectment afer consignation is
done, dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment issue granting the


petition for consignation and ORDERING and DIRECTING the respondents
EJECTMENT after consignation is done.

Petitioner is ORDERED and DIRECTED to deposit and or consign the


disturbance compensation due to the Cashier, DAR Provincial Office, Pala-o, Iligan
City, whom is hereby instructed to release the said amount in favor of the following:

RESPONDENTS AMOUNT IN PHILIPPINE PESO


1. Anacleto Barrecuatro 71,556.50
2. Clemente Fabroa 52,768.42
3. Lolita Gongob 61,241.75
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
DARAB CASE NO. X-1770-LN-2016

4. Salvador Iglupaz 25.413.50


5. Narciso Solatorio 106,550.00
6. Angelo Verano 41,615.00
7. Cornelia Verano 4,821.50
TOTAL 363,9676.67

3. Respondents, thru counsel respectfully moves for the


reconsideration of the above decision assailing the main issue of the case on
whether or not the consignation is proper;

4. Firstly, pursuant to the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform


granting the Application of herein Petitioner for Exemption Clearance from
CARP Coverage, the DAR orders the petitioner as follows:

1. Disturbance compensation to affected tenants, farmworkers, or bona


fide occupants, if any, in such amount or kind as may be mutually agreed
upon and approved by the DAR, shall be paid within sixty (60) days from the
Applicants receipt of this order, and proof of such payment shall be furnished
to the Land Use Cases Division (LUCD), Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
(BALA) within (5) days from the expiration of the aforementioned 60-day
period. (emphasis supplied)

5. The order clearly states that the amount of disturbance


compensation shall be MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES and
such agreement be approved by the DAR;

6. Section 36 (1) of Republic Act 3844, as amended by Republic


Act 6389 provides that, that the Respondents shall receive and is entitled to
disturbance compensation equivalent to five (5) times the average of the
gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding
calendar years.

7. This is the basic formula provided by the law of which the


Respondents are basing their respective claims. Based on the decision, even
this Honorable Office stated and agrees that the amount should be
equivalent to five (5) times the average of the gross harvests on his
landholding during the last five preceding calendar years;

8. But such was not the formula upheld by the decision. As to the
reason why this Honorable Office never used the said formula, Respondents
are still in utter wonder;

9. The Honorable Office failed to see that it was not the computation
of the retired Sulpicio P. Gica of which the amount of disturbance
compensation was based but rather the Total Gross Sales of Copra for the
year 1989 to 1993. In fact it is clearly evidenced in Annex A of the Position
Paper of the Respondents;

10. Furthermore, this was even attested by Representative Petitioner


Rowena Anne F. Tamula who was the Officer-in-charge/cashier that year;
Page | 2
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
DARAB CASE NO. X-1770-LN-2016

11. Clearly, there is a purpose of why the law states it should be


based on average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the
last five preceding calendar years;

12. The price of copra is undoubtedly different for those years;

13. That instead of applying such law-prescribed formula, or to the


very least that this Honorable Office may/could have given the Respondents
the avenue or chance in order for the disturbance compensation to be re-
computed, this Honorable Office preferred the erroneous computation of the
Petitioner;

14. Respondents raised the issue that such Total Gross Sales can
never be the basis of the computation of the disturbance compensation as it
will unquestionably render an inadequate amount;

15. First, it was the Total Gross Sales of Copra from the Year 1989 to
1993 which is clearly not what the law is prescribing; and Second, petitioner
used the net harvests, where Petitioner deducted the expenses from the
average harvest of each of the Respondents to arrive on that erroneous
amount, which again is clearly not what the law provides;

16. In regards to Salvador Iglupaz, it is quite unbecoming and


improper for this Honorable Office to arrive on a very hasty conclusion that
Respondents allegedly failed to convince Mr. Iglupaz to fight back and ask to
big sum;

17. The very reason for Mr. Iglupaz in relying on the computation of
the former MARO was for the fact that he suffered stroke and he has no way
of finding any proof or evidence (i.e receipts etc.) that his disturbance
compensation is supposed to be way higher than the Petitioner is forcing to
herein Respondents;

18. Interestingly, why was then Mr. Salavador Iglupaz included as one
of the Respondents when he is claimed to have agreed to receive the
amount? The reason is that he knows for a fact that the amount was grossly
inadequate;

19. Respondents believe the Honorable Office may have decided the
case rather HARSHLY;

20. One of the main reasons for the birth of this consignation case
was the disagreement between the parties on the amount of the disturbance
compensation;

Page | 3
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
DARAB CASE NO. X-1770-LN-2016

21. In that sense, the case still begs the question of whether or not the
amount being offered by the Petitioner is correct and whether or not there was
a violation of pertinent laws and jurisprudence;

22. Unfortunately, this question was never answered in the decision;

23. In the very beginning, such amount was challenged by the


Respondents;

24. The DAR at the end of the day, being the forum supposed to
mediate the parties, has the responsibility to determine whether the amount of
the disturbance compensation is proper and whether the offered amount was
based on pertinent laws and jurisprudence;

25. The Honorable Office arrived on its decision solely for the
misunderstood acts of the Respondents;

26. However, the alleged failure of the respondents to show their own
counter offer during the called meetings and their alleged disrespect (which is
clearly not the case) did not in any way affect or diminish their rights to the
correct amount of disturbance compensation;

27. Just like in any other case, the Honorable Office is enjoined to
exercise the power to grant any petition JUDICIOUSLY AND SPARINGLY,
WITH RESTRAINT, AND WITH THE END IN VIEW OF UTILIZING THE
SAME FOR CORRECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE DIGNITY OF
THE COURT, and not for retaliation or vindictiveness;

28. Basic is the principle of law that the power of the court must be
exercised on the preservative, not the vindictive principle; and on the
corrective, not the retaliatory, idea of punishment;

29. Respondents believe that the decision still, in every other case
involving disturbance compensation, has to state the law of which the
disturbance compensation offered by the Petitioner is based, because clearly
the law provides a certain formula;

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

This May ___, 2016 at Iligan City, Philippines.

Page | 4
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
DARAB CASE NO. X-1770-LN-2016

THOMAS DEAN M. QUIJANO


Counsel for the Respondents
0018-B, De Leon St., Poblacion, Iligan City
PTR No. 6049685 / 01-15-15 / Iligan City
IBP No. 944419 / 12-05-15 / Iligan City
Attorneys Roll No. 36882 1991
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020571 June 5, 2013

Copy furnished:

Atty. JOE VICTOR E. ABERILLA


No. 01, Dona Josefa Avenue
Cor. Tubod Highway, Rosario Heights,
Iligan City, Philippines
9200

Page | 5