REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL PROSECUTION OFFICE XII

Office of the City Prosecutor
___________ City

DANIEL MACHUNAGA
Petitioner,

-versus-
CIVIL CASE No. _________
For Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage under Article 36 of
the Family Code
EPOOR GONZALES,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ON THE REPORT ON COLLUSION DATED ____________)

Petitioner DANIEL MACHUNAGA, through the undersigned

counsel, most respectfully manifests and alleges to this Honorable
Office that:

1. Petitioner received a copy of the Report on Collusion

through counsel, on June 25, 2016;

2. The Honorable City Prosecutor ______________ stated

in the adverse Report on Collusion dated June 22, 2016 that:

x x x

In compliance with the duty imposed under Article 48 of

the Family Code, the undersigned dutifully subpoenaed
respondent wife at her place of work at ABS-CBN no less than
three times. In all three instances, respondent never appeared
in this Office nor replied on whether or not she was interested
in the nullity proceedings. Respondent wife consistently ignored
the Subpoenae issued by this Office.

Yet under R.A. 10071 particularly Section 9 (b) on the

powers and functions of the City Prosecutor, the City
Prosecutor may by subpoena summon witnesses to appear
and testify under oath before him, and the attendance or
evidence of an absent ort recalcitrant witness may be enforced
by application to any trial court.
 It is worthy of note that respondent wife never indicated
the slightest interest in the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage filed against her, a petition which would possibly
break her marriage and destroy her family.

This is an indication of collusion. Respondent never

responded nor protested to the petition for nullity because she
herself is interested in obtaining the nullity. She and petitioner
husband have agreed to nullification of their marriage.

In view of the circumstances, the undersigned finds

COLLUSION between and sic wife to be present in this case.

x x x

4. It is herein respectfully manifested that Petitioner clearly

alleged in the Petition that the last time he and Respondent spoke to
each other was in January 2013 when Respondent accused
Petitioner of not providing her and their children financial support.
Wanting to clarify his name, Petitioner agreed to meet with
Respondent, only if he would be accompanied by his own mother and
sister, and the Respondents sister;

5. After the above incident in 2013, which was more than

three (3) years ago, Petitioner and Respondent had neither seen nor
spoken to each other;

6. Petitioner did not inform Respondent of the filing of the

case, and could only assume that Respondent found out about it
when Summons with a copy of the Petition was duly served unto her;

7. Petitioner no longer attempted to reach out to

Respondent through the years, but is able to directly contact and
communicate with their children;

8. In Philippine laws, collusion is an agreement between

husband and wife to have their marriage annulled or nullified. It
requires establishing that both parties agreed to file an annulment.
They would decide and agree on various concerns relating to the
case to have a favorable judgment. Such is not present in this case;

9. With all due respect, there was, and is, no possibility of

collusion between Petitioner and Respondent simply on the basis that
they have not seen nor spoken to each other since January 2013.

2
There could have been no opportunity at all for the parties to conspire
to collude due to the fact that they are not in very good terms;

10. Contrary to the findings of the Honorable City Prosecutor,

the mere fact that Respondent never responded nor protested to the
Petition for nullity does not sufficiently prove that she herself is
interested in obtaining the nullity, or that there was collusion between
the parties;

11. The lack of indication of the slightest interest in the

Petition on the part of Respondent also does not prove collusion;

12. It cannot be gainsaid that Respondent would have to

spend a significant amount of money to appear before the Office of
the City Prosecutor on the scheduled dates, considering that
Respondent lives and works in Quezon City, which necessitates
traveling by air to _______________ City, and spending for lodging
and meals when in the area. It may be that Respondent has decided
not to attend the scheduled hearings despite notices due to lack of
resources to do so;

13. Moreover, to refute any insinuation of collusion, Petitioner

gave all the contact numbers he has of Respondent to the Office of
the City Prosecutor and staff, for their proper disposition concerning
the case. In fact, Petitioner even asked for additional contact
numbers of Respondent that he may not be aware of from their
children, in the hopes that Respondent would finally come to terms
with the instant action and manifest her sentiments thereon when
contacted by the Office of the City Prosecutor. Unfortunately, this did
not happen. Instead, Honorable Prosecutor
______________________ interpreted Respondents silence to be
an indication of collusion;

14. Again, with all due respect, it is commonplace in most

annulment proceedings for the other party not to participate at all,
which, however, does not indicate collusion. To be clear, the non-
appearance of Respondent at the scheduled hearing for
determination of existence of collusion may have been for any
reason, all of them unknown to Petitioner, but there is certainly no
collusion present in this case;

15. The Supreme Court has laid down the rules governing
the proceeding in declaring a marriage null and void under A.M. 02-
11-10-SC, March 4, 2003 (Proposed Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages).
Section 9 thereof provides:

3
 Sec. 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor. (1) Within
one month after receipt of the court order mentioned in
paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor shall
submit a report to the court stating whether the parties are in
collusion and serve copies thereof on the parties and their
respective counsels, if any.

(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall

state the basis thereof in his report. The parties shall file their
respective comments on the finding of collusion within ten days
from receipt of a copy of the report. The court shall set the
report for hearing and if convinced that the parties are in
collusion, it shall dismiss the petition.

(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the

court shall set the case for pre-trial. It shall be the duty of the
public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial.;

16. Petitioner is aware of the remedy spelled out in the

above-quoted provision. However, in the interest of justice and
expediency, Petitioner most respectfully files the instant Motion for
Reconsideration to allow the Honorable City Prosecutor to generously
revisit her Report on Collusion dated June 22, 2016, and to find merit
in the reversal thereof by virtue of the above manifestations and
reasoning presented;

17. Most importantly, Petitioner manifests and signifies his

cooperation to any further action deemed necessary by the
Honorable Prosecutor within the bounds of law, if only to erase any
doubt and for the truth to prevail, that there is no collusion in the
instant case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Office that the finding of existence of
collusion in the Report on Collusion dated June 22, 2016, be reversed
for failure to prove the presence of collusion, and, if proper, for the
issuance of a new Report stating that no collusion exists in the instant
case.

The Petitioner likewise prays for such relief and remedies as

may be just and equitable under premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

4
______________ City. June 28, 2016.

NAME
Counsel for Petitioner
PTR No.
IBP No.
Roll of Attorneys No.
MCLE Compliance No.

5
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
_______________ City ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, DANIEL MACHUNAGA, Filipino, of legal age, resident of
____________ City, after having been sworn in accordance with law,
hereby depose and state:

1. I am the petitioner in the Petition in which this

Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is attached;

2. I caused the preparation of this Petition by my counsel,

Atty. __________________;

3. I have read and understood the allegations in the

Petition and affirm that, based on my personal knowledge, and the
contents of authentic records, the allegations therein are true and
correct;

4. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim

involving the issues raised in the Petition in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or its different divisions, or any tribunal or agency;

5. If I should hereafter learn that an action or proceeding

similar to this Petition has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or its different divisions, or any
other tribunal or agency, I shall inform the said court, tribunal, or
agency as well as the Honorable Court of such filing or pendency
within five (5) days from learning the same; and

6. I am executing this Verification and Certification of Non-

Forum Shopping to attest to the truth of the foregoing statements
and to comply with Section 4 of Rule 58, and Sections 1 and 2 of
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

FUTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, this

____ day of _____ 2016, in ____________________.

DANIEL MACHUNAGA
Affiant

6
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this ____ day
of_________2016, in ________________ City, affiant DANIEL
MACHUNAGA, exhibiting to me his ID No._____________,
issued by the ____________________________ on
______________________ in _______________________.

Doc. No. ____________;

Page No. ____________;
Book No. ____________;
Series of 2016.

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

OSG Building, 134 Amorsolo Street
Makati City