Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD
Office of the Regional Adjudicator
Tacloban City

ALBERTO SALADO, ET AL.,

Complainants DARAB Case No. R-0801-103-04

-versus-

CMH PROPERTIES, INC., represented

by Engr. Arnel Ganadillo, and
MARIA L. ANIDO,
Respondents.

x-----------------------------------------x

CMH PROPERTIES, INC., represented

by Engr. Arnel Ganadillo,
Petitioner, DARAB Case No. ____________

-versus-

ALBERTO SALADO, ET AL.,

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS
PETITION FOR RELIEF OF JUDGMENT

CO-RESPONDENT MARIA L. ANIDO, by counsel and unto this

Honorable Office most respectfully avers: THAT—

ANTECEDENT FACTS

A decision was promulgated in the above-captioned case on 3 July

2005, and received by the parties on 19 August 2005.

Respondent CMH PROPERTIES INC. (herein petitioner) filed a

Motion for Reconsideration on the decision on 3 September 2005. However,
in its Order dated 30 November 2005, this Honorable Office found no
cogent reason to reverse or set aside or amend the decision. Moreover, the
Office also found that the motion for reconsideration was filed on September
6, 2005, which was already beyond the reglamentary period of fifteen (15)

Page 1 of 4
days to file said motion, as the decision was received by the CMH lawyer on
August 18, 2005, and they had until September 2, 2005 within which to file
the same.
Respondent CMH Properties again filed a Motion for Reconsideration
dated 27 December 2005 on the 30 November 2005 Order, which is
tantamount to the prohibited Second Motion for Reconsideration. The same
was submitted for resolution in the Office Order dated 20 March 2006.

These essential facts were deliberately not alleged in the assailed

Petition for Relief from Judgment, which petitioner CMH Properties Inc. has
recently filed before the same Office against Alberto Salada, et al. – and
deliberately omitting another indispensable party – herein respondent
MARIA ANIDO.

Pursuant to Section 4, Rule IX, DARAB New Rules of Procedure, a

petition for relief from judgment must be based on grounds of fraud,
accident, mistake and excusable neglect by which the order, resolution or
decision complained of was rendered, provided that the time the fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable neglect was discovered six (6) months from
notice of order, resolution or decision from which relief is sought, and
provided, further, that the petitioner has no other adequate remedy that is
available to him in the ordinary course of law.

However, in the foregoing premises, it is clearly shown that herein

petitioner filed two (2) motions for reconsiderations. As far as herein
respondent is concerned, the first motion was denied while the latter is still
submitted for resolution.

Likewise, herein respondent is aware of the fact that the complainants

in this case have already filed their motion for execution of the decision, the
same being now final and executory.

Thus, it is evident that the petition violated all the requirements of

Section 4, Rule IX of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure. First, the
petitioner had other adequate remedy available to him in the ordinary course
of law, such as the filing of two motions for reconsideration, and he is not
prevented from filing a Notice of Appeal within 15 days reglamentary
period. Second, the issues raised by him have already been raised and
resolved in the two motions for reconsiderations aforementioned, and this
petition is now begging off the questions again on the same matters already
raised and resolved by this Office in the two (2) preceding motions for
reconsiderations which petitioner deliberately failed to mention.

Finally, the six months reglamentary period from notice of the

assailed decision dated 3 July 2005 on August 18, 2005 up to the filing of
the petition on October 2006 has already lapsed on February 18, 2006.

Page 2 of 4
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it
is respectfully moved that the instant petition for relief from judgment be
DENIED OUTRIGHT for lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed
for.

Tacloban City. October 25, 2006.

FILOMENO BRIAN M. OBALLO JR.

Counsel for the Respondent Maria L. Anido
253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City
Roll No. 37379
IBP Lifetime No. 00733
PTR No. 6001273; 1-2-06; Tacloban City

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Tacloban )S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, FEDERICO L. ANIDO, of legal age, Filipino, married and a

resident of Tacloban City, under oath hereby depose and state:

I am the attorney-in-fact of Maria L. Anido; I have asked our counsel

to prepare the foregoing motion to dismiss; I have read the same and the
contents thereof are true and correct based on documents and public records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25

October 2006 at Tacloban City, Philippines.

FEDERICO L. ANIDO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25 October 2006 at

Tacloban City, Philippines.

Doc. No. ___

Page No. ___
Book No. ___
SERIES OF 2006
NOTICE

The Receiving Clerk

Page 3 of 4
DARAB, Tacloban City

Please submit the foregoing motion to dismiss for the consideration

and approval of this Honorable Adjudicator immediately upon receipt hereof
sans oral arguments.

FILOMENO BRIAN M. OBALLO JR.

Atty. VISPERO MAYOR

Counsel for the Complainant
Tacloban City

Mssrs. Ernesto Alicando/Teodoro Yu Sy

Counsel for the Complainants

Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing
motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Adjudicator
immediately upon receipt hereof sans oral arguments.

FILOMENO BRIAN M. OBALLO JR.

COPY FURNISHED: (by registered mail due to lack of messengerial

service; disregard if personally served)

ATTY. VISPERO LL. MAYOR

Counsel for the Respondent CMH
Rm. 3, 2/F Metrobank Bldg.
P.Burgos St., Tacloban City

Mssrs. Ernesto Alicando/Teodoro Yu Sy

Counsel for the Complainants
DAR Legal Division
DAR Region 8, Tacloban City

Page 4 of 4