Scribd
Upload
179 views3 pages

Sample Comment To Motion For Reconsideration

Sample Comment to Motion for Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Jovic Catabona
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
179 views3 pages

Sample Comment To Motion For Reconsideration

Sample Comment to Motion for Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Jovic Catabona
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS MANILA

SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH DIVISION CANTIER SYSTEMS, INC. as represented by its


CEO, PRABAKAR SELVAM, Petitioner, -versus-

CA-G.R. SP NO. 154968 For: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, AND
“TRT GLOBAL LIMITED PH,” Respondents, X--------------------------X

COMMENT/OPPOSITION (RE: PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED


06 SEPTEMBER 2018)

PRIVATE RESPONDENT TRT GLOBAL LIMITED (hereinafter “Private Respondent”), by


Counsel, unto this Honorable Court of Appeals, in response to the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Petitioner Cantier Systems, Inc., (hereinafter “Petitioner”)
dated 06 September 2018, most respectfully states that:

Page 1 of 6

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS 1. On 13 September 2018, Private Respondent, through


counsel, received the Motion for Reconsideration from the 31 July 2018 Decision of
the Special Seventeenth (17 th) Division of the Honorable Court of Appeals filed by
the Petitioner, as represented by its CEO, PRABAKAR SELVAM, dated 06 September
2018. 2. However, Private Respondent has yet to receive a copy of an Order from
the Honorable Court of Appeals requiring it to file its Comment/Opposition to such
Motion for Reconsideration in accordance with the applicable provisions of Rule 65
of the Revised Rules of Court. 3. For the sake of expediting the resolution of the
present controversy between the Parties, Private Respondent finds it prudent to
initiate the filing of its Comment/Opposition to assert and lay down its arguments
against the position adhered by the Petitioner pertaining the present case by virtue
of the following discussion. DISCUSSION Petitioner’s contention, as well as the
arguments, citations, and premises in its Motion for Reconsideration, is a mere
rehash of its previous position articulated in its Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
In its Motion, Petitioner raises the following grounds: 1. The Honorable Court of
Appeals gravely erred in dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari on the ground
that only a mere amendment was involved in Private Respondent’s designation as
the proper party; and

Page 2 of 6

2. The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred when it ruled that “TRT Global
Limited PH” and “TRT Global Limited” are one and the same entity. The bulk of the
aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of Petitioner-Movant’s previous
arguments. While it is true that a Motion for Reconsideration, by its very nature,
may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the Decision sought to be
reconsidered and that the same should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration,1
the hard reality is that Petitioner has FAILED TO RAISE NEW MATTERS
SUBSTANTIALLY PLAUSIBLE OR COMPELLINGLY PERSUASIVE to warrant its desired
course of action. Considering therefore that the grounds presently raised have been
sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed in this Honorable Court of Appeals’
Decision, it behooves Petitioner to convince the former that certain findings or
conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant Motion
DOES NOT RAISE ANY NEW OR SUBSTANTIAL GROUND OR REASON TO JUSTIFY THE
RECONSIDERATION SOUGHT. Petitioner-Movant made capital on the alleged defect
in Private Respondent’s amendment of its Complaint, claiming that it does not
merely involve the latter’s designation as a proper party but substantial
amendment. This assertion is a baseless and sweeping statement. The Honorable
Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it merely resolved the issue in
consonance with the Supreme Court’s decree that “amendments of pleadings may
be resorted to subject to the condition that the amendments sought do not alter the
cause of action of the original complaint.”2 (Italics ours) Despite Petitioner’s
melodramatic imputation of Private Respondent’s outright and flagrant disregard of
the Rules of Procedure pertaining to the latter’s averment that TRT GLOBAL LIMITED
and TRT GLOBAL LIMITED PH are one and the same entity, this Honorable Court of
Appeals Decision actually upholds the Rules of Court, particularly Section 4, Rule
10,3 and found that the trial court can validly allow the Guerra Enterprises
Company, Inc. vs Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur, e. al., G.R. No. L-28310,
April 17, 1970 SCRA 314, 317 2 Page 4 of 7, Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 154968 3 Rule 10, Sec. 4. Formal amendments. – A defect in the
designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors may be
summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on
motion, 1

Page 3 of 6

formal amendment of the name of the Private Respondent from “TRT Global Limited
PH” to “TRT Global Limited” on the ground that such amendment merely confirms
the voluntary corrections already made by the latter. Accordingly, the Honorable
Court of Appeals may take note that the factual circumstances and legal assertions
raised by the Petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration concerning CA-G.R. SP No.
154968 had already been thoroughly considered and passed upon in its
deliberations, which led to its Decision dated 31 July 2018. Indeed, it is glaringly
obvious that this Motion was apparently filed for no other reason than to gain time
and gamble on a possible change of opinion of the Honorable Court of Appeals. By
filing this Motion, Petitioner had disrupted the Honorable Court of Appeals’
deliberation on the merits of the case. This strategy cannot be tolerated as it will
entail inevitable delay in the disposition of the case. CONCLUSION For the foregoing
reasons, Private Respondent respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court of
Appeals OUTRIGHTLY DENY Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully prays of the
Honorable Court of Appeals that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
Petitioner be DENIED for lack of merit. Other just and equitable reliefs available in
the premises are likewise prayed for. Respectfully Submitted. Parañaque City for the
City of Manila, 15 October 2018. provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the
adverse party.

Page 4 of 6

MENDOZA LEGASPI & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Private Respondent TRT Global
Limited Unit R, PSCOR Building, T.M. Kalaw Street corner Elsie Gaches Street, BF
Homes Subdivision, Parañaque City, Metro Manila Telefax No.: (02) 833-2177 BY:
ATTY. HARRY TRUMAN B. TEMPERANTE IBP No. 030247/1-10-18/PPLM PTR
No.1238663E/01-05-18/PQUE Roll No. 69766 MCLE Compliance No. VI-0008623/05-
24-2018 Phone No. 0927-743-0569

NOTICE SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH DIVISION Court of Appeals Manila HONORABLE


FELIX P. REYES Public Respondent Regional Trial Court – Branch 70 Taguig City
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL No. 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati
City THE LAW FIRM OF CHAN ROBLES AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for Petitioner
Cantier Systems, Inc. 22nd Flr., Suite 2205 Tektite East Tower Philippine Stock
Exchange Centre Exchange Road, Ortigas Center 1605 Pasig City Greetings!

Page 5 of 6

Kindly be notified that the undersigned counsel respectfully submits the foregoing
Comment/Opposition for the kind consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
of Appeals immediately upon receipt hereof without need of further oral arguments
or appearance of the parties.

HARRY TRUMAN B. TEMPERANTE

EXPLANATION Due to lack of personnel to effect personal service and distance


constraints, copies of the instant Comment/Opposition were served to the
aforementioned addressees via registered mail and/or licensed private courier, as
herein above indicated by the corresponding attached registry receipts and/or
courier receipts. HARRY TRUMAN B. TEMPERANTE COPY FURNISHED: HONORABLE
FELIX P. REYES Public Respondent Regional Trial Court – Branch 70 Taguig City
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL No. 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati
City THE LAW FIRM OF CHAN ROBLES AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for Petitioner
Cantier Systems, Inc. 22nd Flr., Suite 2205 Tektite East Tower Philippine Stock
Exchange Centre Exchange Road, Ortigas Center 1605 Pasig City

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy