Court of Appeals: Republic of The Philippines Mindanao Station Cagayan de Oro City

1
Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Mindanao Station
Cagayan de Oro City
PAOLO GULAPA CA-G.R. CV NO. 02798

Plaintiff-Appellant RTC Br. 12, Zamboanga City
Civil Case No. 6969
- versus -
RE: COLLECTION OF SUM OF

MONEY AND DAMAGES WITH
ELTON CALUAG APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF
Defendant-Appellee. PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
x ------------------------------------------- x
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S BRIEF
COMES NOW Plaintiff-Appellant, in the above-entitled cases, through
his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully
submit this Appellant’s Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant in the above-entitled cases,
and in support thereof state that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal filed by Plaintiff-Appellant on the Decision dated 18
March 2019 of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga City, in Civil Case
No. 6969, entitled “PAOLO GULAPA versus ELTON CALUAG” for
“COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY AND DAMAGES WITH APPLICATION
FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT”, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
above-entitled case is hereby DISMISSED, the claim or demand
set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid or otherwise
extinguished.
SO ORDERED.”
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE …………………………………………….. 1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………….. 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………. 4
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS …………………………………….…… 4
STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S ………………………………………………... 5
ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………………. 5
RELIEF ……………………………………………………………………… 8
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Philippine Statutes
New Civil Code of the Philippines
Philippine Jurisprudence
New Civil Code of the Philippines – Article 21
Jose vs. Javellana, GR No. 158239, January 25, 2012
Pacific Maritime Services, Inc., vs Ranay, GR No. 111002, July 21, 1997
BPI vs Spouses Royeca, GR No. 176664, July 21, 2008
Royal Cargo vs DFS Sports Unlimited, GR No. 158621, December 10, 2008
Heirs of Spouses Teofilo vs. Spouses Mores and Lopez, GR No. 159941,
August 17, 2011
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On 05 Februay 2006, Defendant borrowed from Plaintiff a sum of

money in the amount of TWO MILLION (Php 2,000,000.00) PESOS,
Philippine currency, payable within six (6) months with Ten (10%) Per cent
interest per month. Defendant then issued a Promissory Note dated 05
February 2006 to that effect.
2. On or about 02 August 2006, Plaintiff made a verbal demand before

Defendant in order to compel the latter to comply with his obligation. However,
defendant failed to settle his obligation. Consequently, Plaintiff sent Defendant
a Demand Letter dated 20 September 2006.
3. Despite the persistent and continuous demands for the payment of

the said amount, Defendants failed and refused and continuously fail and
refuse to settle their total obligation to the Plaintiff. Until now, notwithstanding
repeated demands by him, Defendant failed and refused and continuously
failed and refused to pay their total account with herein Plaintiff to its great
damage and prejudice.
4. These irresponsible acts of Defendant indisputably show his

deceitful and fraudulent intent not only in incurring said obligation but even in
the performance thereof, as until now, in spite of Plaintiff’s persistent and
continuous demands for the payment of the said amount, Defendant failed
and refused and continuously fail and refuse to settle his total obligation to the
Plaintiff to his damage and prejudice in the aforesaid sum of TWO MILLION
(Php 2,000,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, which should be adjudged
against herein Defendant.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
5. On 09 February 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant instituted the above-entitled

case before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City which was thereafter
raffled in Branch 12 docketed as Civil Case No. 6969 against herein
Defendant-Appellant.
6. At the same time, Plaintiff-Appellant, in his complaint, filed an

application for a writ of preliminary attachment due to the acts of herein
Defendant-Appellant of disposing his properties.
7. During trial, Defendant-Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss on the

ground that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been
paid or otherwise extinguished. Said Court in Its Order dated 18 March 2019,
granted the motion in which the dispositive portion reads:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby grants the

Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant for lack of cause of action.
SO ORDERED.”
8. Plaintiff-Appellant thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration

dated 21 March 2019 praying before the Trial Court to set aside Its Order
dismissing the case.
5
9. On 25 March 2019, the Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid Motion

for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Motion for

Reconsideration filed by herein Plaintiff is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
10. On 30 March 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant, through counsel, received

the above-mentioned Order and thereafter immediately filed a Notice of
Appeal and the corresponding appeal fees from the Decision of the trial court
dated 25 March 2019. Instead of acting on the Notice of Appeal, the Trial
Court dismissed said Notice in its Order dated 04 April 2019, citing Section 01,
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, stating that:
“It appears that the Order dated 25 March 2019 dismissing the
Motion for Reconsideration is not a final order that completely
disposes of the case, the Notice of Appeal filed by Plaintiff is
hereby denied.
SO ORDERED.”
STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT

DEFENDANT ALREADY EXTINGUISHED HIS OBLIGATION TO THE
HEREIN PLAINTIFF.
II. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MAY RECOVER FOR

DAMAGES AND OTHER LEGAL EXPENSES.
DISCUSSION
FIRST ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF THE TRIAL

COURT OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IS FINAL AND THEREFORE APPEALABLE.
The Order Dated 25 March 2019 is a FINAL and

APPEALABLE ORDER, not only an INTERLOCUTORY
ORDER.
11. It should be put to light that an Order granting or denying a Motion

for Reconsideration has already been removed from the enumeration of
Section 1 Rule 41 of non-appealable orders under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC which
amended Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
12. A motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a new

issue, or presenting new evidence, or changing the theory of the case,
but is only seeking a reconsideration of the judgment or final order
based on the same issues, contentions, and evidence either because: (a)
the damages awarded are excessive; or (b) the evidence is insufficient to
justify the decision or final order; or (c) the decision or final order is
contrary to law. By denying a motion for reconsideration, or by granting
it only partially, therefore, a trial court finds no reason either to reverse
or to modify its judgment or final order, and leaves the judgment or final
order to stand. The remedy from the denial is to assail the denial in the
6
course of an appeal of the judgment or final order itself. 1 (Emphasis

Ours)
13. The denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order granting

the defending party’s motion to dismiss is not an interlocutory but a
final order because it puts an end to the particular matter involved, or
settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, as to leave nothing for
the trial court to do other than to execute the order. Accordingly, the
claiming party has a fresh period of 15 days from notice of the denial
within which to appeal the denial. 2
14. It can therefore be inferred, based on the preceding paragraphs,

that an Order granting or denying a Motion for Reconsideration in part or in whole is
not an interlocutory order but a final order and as such is already appealable.
Hence, when the Trial Court issued the Order dated 25 March 2019 denying
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein Plaintiff-Appellant, the case was
already ripe for an appeal.
SECOND ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF MAY RECOVER FOR

DAMAGES AND OTHER LEGAL EXPENSES.
When a person ACTS IN DELIBERATE BAD FAITH

and Inflicts Injury upon another, the LATTER SHOULD
BE ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED UNDER THE
LAW.
15. Article 2219 paragraph 10 of the Civil Code provides that moral
damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
x xx
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Article 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32,
34 and 35.
x xx
16. It should always be bore in mind that any person who wilfully
causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. 3
17. In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages,

the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of damages
would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless
or malevolent manner. x x x The requirements of an award of exemplary
damages are: (1) they may be imposed by way of example in addition to
compensatory damages, and only after the claimant's right to them has been
established; (2) that they cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their
determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that
may be awarded to the claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied by bad
faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. 4
1
Heirs of Spouses Teofilo vs. Spouses Mores and Lopez, GR No. 159941, August 17, 2011
2
Jose vs. Javellana, GR No. 158239, January 25, 2012
3
New Civil Code of the Philippines – Article 21
4
Francisco v. Ferrer, Jr., GR No. 142029, February 20, 2001
7
18. Moral damages may be awarded since [petitioners] acted in bad

faith. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it
imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or
ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. However, an award of moral
damages would require certain conditions to be met, to wit: (1) first, there
must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained
by the claimant; (2) second, there must be culpable act or omission factually
established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the
proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) fourth, the
award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of
the Civil Code.
19. In this case, not only did the Defendant-Appellee continuously

failed to pay her obligation with Plaintiff-Appellant upon the latter’s demand,
but also her actions of surreptitious disposition of her property, to the damage
of herein Plaintiff-Appellant, entitled the latter to be compensated through
damages since Defendant-Appellee wantonly acted in bad faith as she was
already informed of the demands made by Plaintiff-Appellant on several
occassions. Conversely, so long as there is a showing of a violation of
the right of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper. 5
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that

Judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant as
follows:
a) Ordering Defendant to pay to Plaintiff the total sum of TWO MILLION

(Php 1,000,000.00), plus the amount of P60,000.00 by way of interests.
b) Ordering Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs the sum of P60,000.00 by way

of Attorney’s fee; P5,000.00 by way of deposit for legal expenses; and
P3,000.00 per appearance in Court, as well as cost of litigation.
c) An Order of Preliminary Attachment be issued by this Honorable Court,

requiring the sheriff to attach properties of the Defendants which are
not exempt from execution or so much thereof as may be sufficient to
satisfy Plaintiff’s demand.
Plaintiff pray for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the
premises.
City of Zamboanga, Philippines, 08 April 2019.
KMJS LAW FIRM

Counsel for Plaintiff
Professional and Occupational Manor
Mayor Jaldon St., Canelar Zamboanga City
Tel no. (062) 991-9999
BY:
5
Almeda vs Cario, G.R. No. 152143, January 13, 2003
8
AAA
PTR NO. 0630574 – 01/03/18
I.B.P. No. 896783-01/3/13 ZC
MCLE No. IV – 0033913 -9/21/11
Roll No. 63729
Copy Furnished:
Atty. B B B
B & D Law Firm
Zamboanga City

Court of Appeals: Republic of The Philippines Mindanao Station Cagayan de Oro City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court of Appeals: Republic of The Philippines Mindanao Station Cagayan de Oro City

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court of Appeals: Republic of The Philippines Mindanao Station Cagayan de Oro City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Republic of the Philippines

PAOLO GULAPA CA-G.R. CV NO. 02798

RE: COLLECTION OF SUM OF

COMES NOW Plaintiff-Appellant, in the above-entitled cases, through

his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully

submit this Appellant’s Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant in the above-entitled cases,

and in support thereof state that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal filed by Plaintiff-Appellant on the Decision dated 18

No. 6969, entitled “PAOLO GULAPA versus ELTON CALUAG” for

“COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY AND DAMAGES WITH APPLICATION

FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT”, the dispositive portion of

which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the

above-entitled case is hereby DISMISSED, the claim or demand

set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid or otherwise

STATEMENT OF THE CASE …………………………………………….. 1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………….. 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………. 4

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS …………………………………….…… 4

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S ………………………………………………... 5

New Civil Code of the Philippines

New Civil Code of the Philippines – Article 21

Jose vs. Javellana, GR No. 158239, January 25, 2012

BPI vs Spouses Royeca, GR No. 176664, July 21, 2008

1. On 05 Februay 2006, Defendant borrowed from Plaintiff a sum of

2. On or about 02 August 2006, Plaintiff made a verbal demand before

3. Despite the persistent and continuous demands for the payment of

4. These irresponsible acts of Defendant indisputably show his

5. On 09 February 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant instituted the above-entitled

6. At the same time, Plaintiff-Appellant, in his complaint, filed an

7. During trial, Defendant-Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss on the

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby grants the

8. Plaintiff-Appellant thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration

9. On 25 March 2019, the Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid Motion

“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Motion for

10. On 30 March 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant, through counsel, received

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT

II. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MAY RECOVER FOR

FIRST ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF THE TRIAL

The Order Dated 25 March 2019 is a FINAL and

11. It should be put to light that an Order granting or denying a Motion

12. A motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a new

course of an appeal of the judgment or final order itself. 1 (Emphasis

13. The denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order granting

14. It can therefore be inferred, based on the preceding paragraphs,

SECOND ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF MAY RECOVER FOR

When a person ACTS IN DELIBERATE BAD FAITH

17. In the same fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary damages,

18. Moral damages may be awarded since [petitioners] acted in bad

19. In this case, not only did the Defendant-Appellee continuously

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that

a) Ordering Defendant to pay to Plaintiff the total sum of TWO MILLION

b) Ordering Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs the sum of P60,000.00 by way

c) An Order of Preliminary Attachment be issued by this Honorable Court,

KMJS LAW FIRM

You might also like