Scribd
Upload
9 views2 pages

Resolution: (DARAB Case No.5980'NNE'21)

The Board denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner EuFrocina Sandan Pumaras regarding a previous decision affirming a Joint Decision from December 2021. The petitioner failed to provide new evidence or persuasive arguments to justify a reversal of the decision, which was deemed contrary to law and evidence. Consequently, the Board upheld its prior ruling, stating that the motion lacked merit.

Uploaded by

Jeff Awao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views2 pages

Resolution: (DARAB Case No.5980'NNE'21)

The Board denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner EuFrocina Sandan Pumaras regarding a previous decision affirming a Joint Decision from December 2021. The petitioner failed to provide new evidence or persuasive arguments to justify a reversal of the decision, which was deemed contrary to law and evidence. Consequently, the Board upheld its prior ruling, stating that the motion lacked merit.

Uploaded by

Jeff Awao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

EUFROCINA SANDAN PUMARAS,

Petitioners, DARAB CASE No. 21396-21396-A


(DARAB Case No.5980’NNE’21)
-versus -

ANGELITO QUIROS, and any other


Person acting in his behalf,
Respondents,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

HRS. OF PEDRO QUIROZ,


CATALINA J. QUIROZ Rep. by
ANGELITO QUIROZ,
Petitioners,

- versus -

EUFROCINA SANDAN PUMARAS,


and all other person acting under
Her authority.
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

Before this Board is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by


petitioner from this Board’s Decision dated 3 October 2023, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is
denied. The Joint Decision dated 20 December 2021 is
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

In the motion, the petitioner argued that:

“The above quoted Decision, is contrary to law, contrary to


the evidences presented by the petitioner, likewise contrary to
the circumstances, culture and tradition in place where the
subject property is located.”

After careful consideration of the arguments and the


allegations of the petitioner, this Board finds the motion to be without
merit.
RESOLUTION DCN 21396-21396-
A
Page 2 of 2 Pages

Clearly, the grounds raised by the petitioner in her motion had


already been considered and discussed in the decision sought to be
reconsidered. Petitioner failed to present new matters sufficiently
persuasive to justify or induce a modification or reversal of the
assailed decision.

Here, the petitioner’s allegation are mere statements without


any evidences to show how and why must the Decision of this
Honorable Board be set aside or reversed. Without any proof as to
the allegation that the Board’s decision is contrary to law, contrary to
the evidences presented, contrary to the circumstances, culture and
tradition of the petitioner’s place where the subject property is
located must fail.

In the case of Republic of the Philippines, represented by National


Telecommunication Commission (NTC) vs. International
Communication Commission (ICC), G.R. No. 141667, 17 July 2006,
495 SCRA 192, the Supreme Court has held that: “ among the ends to
which a Motion for Reconsideration is addressed is precisely to convince this
Office that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or evidence,
which the defendant-appellant in this case has failed to do.”

Hence, settled is the rule that “a motion for reconsideration which does
not make out a new matter sufficiently persuasive to induce a modification of
judgment will be denied” as held in the case of Golden Country Farms,
Inc. vs. Sanvar Development Corporation, G.R. No. 58027,
September 28, 1992, 214 SCRA, citing PCIB vs. Escolin, 67 SCRA
2002.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for


Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Diliman, Quezon City.

You might also like