CONSTANTINO HINDAP, DARAB CASE NO.

21055-21055-
FRANCISCO OBIAS, DAVID A4
BERMUDEZ, HEIRS OF ROGELIO (Reg. Case No. XI-4118 to 4123-DC-17)
DAJAO, represented by GRACE
DAJAO, ROMEO ABENIR,
ROMULO LAMIGAS, ROGELIO
TESORO, HEIRS OF TEODORO
ABENIR, represented by DOROTEA
ABENIR, DIZON LAMIGAS, EDIPOLO
MAMBURAM, HEIRS OF GRACIANA
DAJAO, represented by SANTOS C.
DAJAO, FELIPE HINDAP, EVELINA
LAUDENIO, HEIRS OF NILO
ARANGOTE, represented by
PURIFICATION H. ARANGOTE,
ELMERO LAMIGAS, ERNESTO
PLAZA, APOLONIO ABENIR,
ROGELIO ABENIR, JOAN HINDAP,
MERCIDITHA BERMUDEZ, HEIRS OF
ALBERTO DUMANJUG, represented
FLORITA M. DUMANJUG, CARLOS
CABRIAS, ELPIDIO CARBONILLA,
HEIRS OF SENON HETALLA,
represented by ISABELITA
HETALLA, LEONARDO MENGUILLO,
Petitioner-Appellees,

-versus -

SARANGGANI CATTLE CO. INC.,

represented by MAXIMO LOZANO,
Respondent-Appellant.
x - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x

RESOLUTION

Before the Board is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent-

appellant on 01 December 2022 and received by this Office on 09 January
2023 from the Decision dated 19 September 2022, the dispositive portion
of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit.

The Decision of the PARAD dated November 28, 2019, is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

1|Page
 Respondent-appellant argued that the findings of fact in the said
decision are contrary to law and jurisprudence as it entirely disregards the
grave and irreparable damage or injury it would cause to the respondent-
appellant. The movant wants this Board to take a second look to uphold the
validity of the Contract of Lease between petitioner-appellees and
respondent-appellant dated and notarized on 21 December 1999.

Indeed, while a Motion for Reconsideration by its nature, may tend to

dwell on issues already resolved1, the hard reality is that if the movant
failed to raise substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to induce
reversal or modification of judgment to be considered, the Motion for
Reconsideration will be denied.2

In fine, the Board in resolving the issue subject of the appeal provides
a detailed explanation that the law is clear and leaves no room for doubt.
The records clearly disclosed that there has been a failure on the part of
both parties to seek approval of the contract of lease under the terms of
Administrative Order no.9, series of 1999 before performing or executing
the terms of the contract. Having settled that the contract of lease entered
into between the parties is null and void, the same must be given no effect
at all.
The Board cannot just turn a blind eye and simply let it pass. It will continue
to uphold the provisions of the existing law.

These matters were already raised in the proceeding below and the
decision of the Board is based on evidence and facts of the case so that it
cannot be argued that said decision is contrary to the evidence or against
the law. As such, there is no manifest or demonstrable departure from legal
provisions and/or jurisprudence.

A motion for reconsideration which does not make out a new matter
sufficiently persuasive to induce modification of judgment will be denied

1
Lagman vs Ochoa GR No. 193036, December 7, 2010
2
Golden Country Farms Inc. vs Sanvar Devt Corp. GR No. 58027

2|Page
and that a repetition of arguments or grounds already discussed in prior
incidents may properly be categorized as merely for purposes of delay.3
Upon further review and study of the Motion for Reconsideration at
hand, taking into consideration the arguments of the respondent-appellant,
the Board finds that the same had already been thoroughly discussed in
the decision sought to be reconsidered and that no new matters or issues
were raised which would warrant modification, much more, reversal
thereof.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

3
PCIB VS. ESCOLIN, G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896

3|Page