Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 146 views

    Supplemental Comment On Motion For Execution Uy

    Uploaded by

    Raffy Pangilinan
    This document is a supplemental comment/opposition filed by defendants Robert Uy and Nene Uy, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, in response to plaintiffs Jessie A. Galanto and Norma A. Galanto's "Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution." The defendants argue that the motion should not have been served only to them and not to their legal counsel. They further argue that failure to properly serve their attorney means the motion should be treated as invalid and expunged from the record. The defendants request the court to note their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Supplemental Comment On Motion For Execution Uy

    Uploaded by

    Raffy Pangilinan
    146 views2 pages
    This document is a supplemental comment/opposition filed by defendants Robert Uy and Nene Uy, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, in response to plaintiffs Jessie A. Galanto and Norma A. Galanto's "Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution." The defendants argue that the motion should not have been served only to them and not to their legal counsel. They further argue that failure to properly serve their attorney means the motion should be treated as invalid and expunged from the record. The defendants request the court to note their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion.

    Original Title

    Supplemental Comment on Motion for Execution Uy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a supplemental comment/opposition filed by defendants Robert Uy and Nene Uy, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, in response to plaintiffs Jessie A. Galanto and Norma A. Galanto's "Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution." The defendants argue that the motion should not have been served only to them and not to their legal counsel. They further argue that failure to properly serve their attorney means the motion should be treated as invalid and expunged from the record. The defendants request the court to note their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    146 views2 pages

    Supplemental Comment On Motion For Execution Uy

    Uploaded by

    Raffy Pangilinan
    This document is a supplemental comment/opposition filed by defendants Robert Uy and Nene Uy, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, in response to plaintiffs Jessie A. Galanto and Norma A. Galanto's "Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution." The defendants argue that the motion should not have been served only to them and not to their legal counsel. They further argue that failure to properly serve their attorney means the motion should be treated as invalid and expunged from the record. The defendants request the court to note their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    National Capital Judicial Region


    METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
    Valenzuela City, Branch 107

    JESSIE A. GALANTO and NORMA


    A. GALANTO,
    Plaintiffs,

    -versus- Civil Case No. 10608


    For: Ejectment
    ROBERT UY and NENE UY,
    Defendants,
    x--------------------x

    SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT/OPPOSITION ON THE


    MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION

    Defendants ROBERT UY and NENE UY, represented by the Public


    Attorney’s Office, unto this Honorable Court, by way of
    comment/opposition to plaintiff’s “Motion for Issuance of Writ of
    Execution”, most respectfully aver as follows:

    1. A copy of the “Motion for Execution”, which plaintiffs filed through


    their counsel, was furnished only to the defendants at their given address,
    not to the undersigned public attorney. Plaintiffs’ counsel should have
    been aware that the defendants are represented by the Public Attorney’s
    Office-Valenzuela City District Office as a copy of the defendants’ “Answer
    with Counterclaim” dated 13 September 2017, which bears the complete
    address of said office, was sent by it to her through registered mail. The
    undersigned public attorney learned about the filing of the “Motion for
    Execution” only when the defendants conferred with him in his office
    sometime last week and relayed to him their predicament relative to the
    execution of their compromise agreement which plaintiffs seek.

    2. It is so elementary that it hardly requires belaboring that where a


    party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record,
    all notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney of
    record. Service upon any person other than the counsel of record is not
    legally effective and binding upon the party, nor may it start the
    corresponding reglementary period for the subsequent procedural steps
    that may be taken by the attorney.1 Notice should be made upon the
    counsel of record at his exact given address, to which notice of all kinds
    emanating from the court should be sent in the absence of a proper and
    adequate notice to the court of a change of address. 2

    1
    Cervantes v. City Service Corp., et al., G.R. No. 191616, 18 April 2016.
    2
    Soriano, Jr., et al. vs. Soriano, et al., G. R. No. 130348, 3 September 2007.

    Page 1 of 2
    3. Thus, inasmuch as the undersigned public attorney, who is the
    defendants’ counsel de oficio, was not given a copy of the plaintiffs’
    “Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution” it should have been treated as a
    worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive
    and which the court has no authority to act upon. It should be expunged
    from the records

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto


    this Honorable Court that the instant comment/opposition to “Motion for
    Issuance of Writ of Execution” be NOTED.

    Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed
    for.

    Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 21 May 2018.

    PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE


    VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
    3RD Floor, Post Office Bldg.
    Justice Hall Compound, CJ Santos St., Poblacion II,
    Malinta, Valenzuela City

    Through:

    ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN


    Public Attorney II
    Roll No. 64684
    IBP OR No. AR001704 dated 1/16/18 / CALMANA
    MCLE Compliance No. VI - 0006876 dated 3/20/18

    Copy furnished:
    Atty. Andy E. Lapid
    Counsel for the Plaintiffs
    Lot 1, Block 417, Phase 4, Pegasus St. cor. Jupiter St.,
    Metrogate Subd., Heritage Homes,
    Brgy. Loma de Gato, 3019 Marilao, Bulacan

    Explanation:
    A copy of the foregoing comment/opposition was served to plaintiffs’
    counsel through registered mail for lack of personnel to effect personal
    service.

    ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like