Republic of the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Diliman, Quezon City
HEIRS OF CLEMENTE MANATO, Rep. by PEDTRA M. MERES AND ROMEO M. MANATO, Appellants, - versus -
DENR Case No. 8881
ANALEE M. DAVID, Appellee. x---------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION APPELLANTS, for and on their own behalf, unto this Honorable Office, hereby
file this Motion for Reconsideration from the 06 September 2011 Decision of the OIC, Assistant Secretary for for Legal Services, ATTY. ATTY. ANSELMO ANSELMO C. ABUNGAN,
of the the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and respectfully states that:
THE RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION
1.
The OIC, Assistant Secretary for Legal Services, ATTY. ANSELMO C.
ABUNGAN, of the Department Department of Environment Environment and Natural Resources promulgated promulgated a Decision on 06 September 2011, the decretal portion of which reads: “WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, the instant Appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Order dated December 16, 2008 of the Regional Executive Executive Director, DENR-Region IV-B, MIMAROPA, 1515 L & S Building, Building, Roxas Boulevard, Ermita, Manila, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ATTY. ANSELMO C. ABUNGAN OIC, Assistant Secretary for Legal Services” THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE OIC, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGAL SERVICES OF THE DENR COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF MERIT AND AFFIRMED ERRONEOUS DECISION OF THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DENR-REGION IV-B, MIMAROPA.
2
ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS
1.
The unnumbered Free Patent Application of Analee M. David shall not be given
further due course on the grounds that:
1.1. The Free Patent Application was not verified by the Records Unit of the DENR as to whether the said property is covered or not covered by Public Land Application; 1.2. The said property, Lot 2846, Cad. 323-D, San Agustin Cadastre was surveyed for Clemente Manato (father of the Protestants) and no longer covered by any public land application. (Please see Certification issued by the OIC, CENRO Officer, Gerardo Sabigan attached in the Motion for Reconsideration marked as ANNEX “A”); 1.3.
There is a pending claim case filed by the Protestants;
1.4. The Free Patent Application was not received by the Records Unit of the DENR; 1.5. There was No Application Number on the Application for Free Patent filed by the applicant; 1.6. The Free Patent Application was a falsified document because it does not bear the signature of the Applicant . 1.7. A scrutiny of the Free Patent Application of Analee M. David would readily show that the said application bears the signature of her father Eduardo S. David who is not duly authorized by the Applicant. 2.
That the applicant committed PERJURY by way of alleging in Par. 9, 10
and 11 in her application for free patent. Under paragraph 9 she declared that she and her ancestor occupied, cultivated the land since the date of entry thereon on a date that the Applicant can not and did not even identify.
3.
The statement in paragraph no. 10 was false as she never possessed nor
cultivates the land in question.
4.
Under Par. 11 of her application for free patent, she agreed to abide by the
rule that she will demarcate and preserve as permanent timberland to be planted exclusively to trees of known economic value but she violated said provision by constructing a concrete fence beside the creek or stream. The proof of the construction can be easily identified by an ocular inspection.
3
5.
―Making untruthful statement in a narration of facts‖ in a document, the
applicant Analee M. David and her father Eduardo S. David are guilty of falsification of public documents and perjury.
6.
Falsification is a felony penalized under Article 172 of the Revised Penal
Code, which, inter alia, provides: ―The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 shall be imposed upon any person who to the damage of a third party, or with intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document enumerated x x x ― in Art. 171. Among other things, Article 171 provides that an act of falsification is committed by ―making untruthful statement in a narration of facts‖ in a document. The elements, therefore, of such felony are: (a.) the document is false; and (b.) there is damage or intent to cause such damage. Such falsification affects the truth and integrity of the document. The act need not cause any actual prejudice—intent to prejudice is enough. (US v. Paraiso, 1 Phil. 127). The Spanish text employs the word ―perjuicio,‖ which is interpreted by the Court of Appeals as synonymous to ―dano‖ (People v. Marasigan [CA] G.R. No. 6040, October 18, 1940). 7.
That the Affidavit of the Applicant in the Free Patent Application was
signed by her father Eduardo S. David and notarized by the Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL G. MEDINA, JR. , who is not duly authorized to administer oath. Moreover the said affidavit was notarized in the absence of the affiant/applicant, Analee M. David.
8.
The failure of the Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL
G. MEDINA, JR., to examine carefully the falsified documents draws a conclusion that he consented the falsification of the documents specially when he administered oath in the absence of the Applicant, Analee M. David. He is likewise guilty of perjury.
9.
The actuation of Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL
G. MEDINA, JR., of notarizing the aforestated Application for Free Patent is not in connection with the exercise of his official duties, consequently, he acted beyond the scope of his authority.
10.
The Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL G.
MEDINA, JR., committed grave abuse of discretion when he recommended that the
4
(Unnumbered) Free Patent Application filed by Analee M. David be given further due course and the protest filed by the Protestant be dismissed for lack of merit without conducting through investigation.
11.
The Honorable Regional Executive Director of the DENR committed
serious and palpable errors of facts when he concurs with the recommendation of Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL G. MEDINA, JR., If not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable injury or damages to the Protestants.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the Decision or Order dated 16 December 2008 of this Honorable Regional Executive Director of the DENR be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE AND A NEW ONE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF the Protestants.
Further, Protestants prays that a copy the FORMAL/FINAL INVESTIGATION REPORT be released or made available to them in the interest of fair play and due process, and
Protestants are praying that for purposes of mailing, they are submitting No. 7 Cotabato Street, Barangay Ramon Magsaysay, Bago Bantay, Quezon City as their mailing address and that processes and notices be served to the new mailing address.
Protestants-Movant further prays for such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises. Quezon City, Philippines; 26th March 2009.
ROMEO M. MANATO Protestant
PETRA M. MERES
5
Protestant
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. PETRONI F. FRADEJAS Counsel for the Protestee-Applicant No. 001 Bonifacio Street corner Magsaysay Street Barangay Liwayway, Odiongan Romblon
ATTY. VIRGILIO B. TIONGSON DENR - PENRO Odiongan, Romblon GERARDO B. SABIGAN DENR-CENRO Odiongan, Romblon
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Ombudsman Building Agham Road, North Triangle Diliman, Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Malacañang Palace Malacañang, Manila
Honorable Secretary Joselito Atienza OFFICE OF THE DENR SECRETARY Central Office, Visayas Avenue Diliman, 1100 Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT Supreme Court of the Philippines Taft Avenue, Manila
EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
6
Copy of the Manifestation and Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration is being served to the parties in the above-entitled case through registered mail, personal service not being practicable due to distance and time constraints.
ROMEO M. MANATO
PETRA M. MERES
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, EDUARDO ARANETA, Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state: 1.
That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration and I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents; 3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice thereof. Done this 7 th day of July 2011, at Quezon City.
EDUARDO ARANETA Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7 th day of July 2011, in Quezon City, Philippines. Affiant exhibiting to me his Driver License No. C07-08-012579.
Doc. No. ______; Page No. ______; Book No.______; Series of 2011.
NOTARY PUBLIC
7 NNNNNNNNNNNN
With due respect, the Honorable Commission missed the Amended Complaint of the complainant-appellant, when it ruled: Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. However, since complainant is not seeking reinstatement, he is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service and backwages from the date of his dismissal until finality of this decision. A copy of the Amended Complaint is hereto attached and marked as Annex “A”.
With due respect to the Honorable Commission, the fallo of the Decision, clearly show an apparent error when it failed or skipped to state that backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until the date the decision becomes final. Since there was finding of illegal dismissal complainant-appellant should be reinstated to his former position with full backwages until finality of the decision.
In Albino Belen vs. Javellana Farms, Inc. and Daniel Javellana, Jr. (G.R. No. 182158, March 5, 2010), the Supreme Court held: Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 34 of Republic Act 6715 instructs: Art. 279. Security of Tenure . — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. Clearly, the law intends the award of backwages and similar benefits to accumulate past the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision until the dismissed employee is actually reinstated. But if, as in this case, reinstatement is no longer possible, this Court has consistently ruled
8
that backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until the date the decision becomes final. [emphasis supplied]
And in a more recent case of Nationwide Security & Allied Services, Inc. vs. RONALD P. VALDERAMA, G. R. No. 186614, February 23, 2011, the Supreme Court
held: Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances; and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Commission that an Order be issued to reinstate complainant-appellant’s to his former position with full backwages computed from the time of illegal dismissal until the date of the decision becomes final. Other reliefs and remedies which may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Quezon City, 07 July 2011. R.R. RANION & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Complainants No. 919 P. Campa Street Sampaloc, Manila
By:
ATTY. RODOLFO R. RANION Roll No. 25796 PTR No. 9239210; 01-03-2011; Manila IBP NO. 798255; 12/28/2010 – 12/31/2012; Manila MCLE Compliance No. III 0019748 – January 07, 2011
9
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. CESAR S. CAINGLET Counsel for the Respondents No. 10 St. Andrew Street, Metrocor Homes Almanza, Las Piñas City
EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration was served on the other party by registered mail with return card due to lack of available messengerial personnel to effect personal service or delivery.
RODOLFO RANION
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, EDUARDO ARANETA, Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state: 1.
That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration and I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents; 3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different
10
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice thereof. Done this 7 th day of July 2011, at Quezon City.
EDUARDO ARANETA Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7 th day of July 2011, in Quezon City, Philippines. Affiant exhibiting to me his Driver License No. C07-08-012579.
Doc. No. ______; Page No. ______; Book No.______; Series of 2011.
NOTARY PUBLIC
