Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

_________Judicial Region
Branch _______
_____________

ENTENG KABISOTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Civil Case No. __________

-versus- for:

YNA KABISOTE, Ejectment, etc.

Defendant-Apellee.
X---------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT.

The DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, through the undersigned Public Attorney and unto
the Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. On April 5, 2015, Honorable Court dismissed the above-entitled case for the
repeated failure of the plaintiff-appellant to submit the required
Memorandum on Appeal;
2. It was only on April 18, 2017 when the plaintiff-appellant filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on the Order of the Honorable Court dismissing the above-
entitled case. In the plaintiff-appellant’s motion, his alleged failure to submit
the required Memorandum is merely an “honest oversight” and “not
deliberately done to forgo with the plaintiff’s appeal” citing the sudden
demise of her sister and the need in taking care of his sister’s surviving
children;
3. The said reasoning is not however considered as a mere “’ honest oversight”
which justifies the reconsideration of the Order of the Honorable Court. It is
worthy to mention that the plaintiff-appellant was ordered to submit the
required Memorandum on Appeal as early as February 1, 2017. He received
a copy of the Order on February 3, 2017. He is supposed to submit the
required pleading on or before February 18, 2017. However, instead of filing
the required pleading on time, the plaintiff-appellant filed a Motion for
Extension of Time on March 1, 2017 praying that he be given an extension of
fifteen days from February 18, 2017 until March 5, 2017. The said Motion
 should have been considered as a mere scrap of paper since it was filed after
February 18, 2017. According to him, he is saddled with heavy pressure of
work, etc..;
4. However, on March 5, 2017, he still did not submit the required pleading.
Instead, on March 8, 2017, after the lapse of his “promised” pleading, he
submitted another “Motion for Last Extension” citing that he has already
prepared the draft of the required pleading but he has not yet finalized it
because of heavy pressure of work, etc…;
5. The Honorable Court is correct in dismissed the case on April 5, 2017. In fact,
the plaintiff-appellant was liberally given a period of more than 60 days to
submit the required Memorandum on Appeal. As appearing in plaintiff-
appellants pleading, it was only at the time that he was moving for the
reconsideration of the Order of the Honorable Court when the counsel was
already citing the recent death of his sister, etc….;
6. The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his
counsel in the realm of procedural technique. There are exceptions to this
rule, such as when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the
client of due process of law, or when the application of the general rule
results in the outright deprivation of ones property through a technicality (
R Transport Corporation v. Philippine Hawk Transport Corporation, G.R. No.
155737, 19 October 2005, 473 SCRA 342);
7. In this case, respondents counsel advanced this reason for his failure to
submit the appeal memorandum:
a. That there was a delay in the filing of defendants-appellants appeal
memorandum due to heavy pressure of work;
b. Due to the recent death of his sister, etc;
8. Jurisprudence would tell us that this reasoning does not justify the reversal
of the Order of the Honorable Court dismissing the case. The cause of the
delay in the filing of the appeal memorandum, as explained by the plaintiff-
appellant’s counsel, was not due to gross negligence. It could have been
prevented by respondents counsel if he only acted with ordinary diligence
and prudence in handling the case. For a claim of gross negligence of counsel
to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the clients cause must be
shown. In one case, the Court ruled that failure to file appellants brief can
qualify as simple negligence but it does not amount to gross neglience to
justify the annulment of the proceedings below. (Que v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 150739, 18 August 2005, 467 SCRA 358; Redea v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 146611, 6 February 2007, 514 SCRA 389);

9. Moreover, the plaintiff-appellant did not submit any Affidavit of Merit in

their Motion for Reconsideration, the failure of which may call for the
dismissal of the above-entitled case;
10.Finally, plaintiff-appellant was not deprived of due process of law. The right
to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is merely a statutory
privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with
the provisions of the law;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the

Honorable Court to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
plaintiff-appellant for the reasons as stated.

Respectfully Submitted this __ day of May ______in the Municipality of La

Trinidad, Benguet.

Atty. _________
_____________

NOTICE

To the Branch Clerk of Court

RTC, Branch 62

Greetings!

Kindly submit the foregoing motion for the kind consideration of the
Honorable Court without any further oral arguments.

_________________

Copy Furnished thru registered mail:

Atty. ______________
__________________

EXPLANATION

A Copy of the foregoing pleading was furnished to the counsel for the
plaintiff-appellant thru registered mail due to distance and lack of office
personnel to effect the same.

_____________