This document opposes the defendant's motion for reconsideration of a missed pre-trial hearing in a civil case regarding recovery of possession with damages. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant's excuse of a mistaken calendar was invalid and that proper notice was given for the morning hearing. They request that the court deny the defendant's motion for reconsideration due to lack of merit.
This document opposes the defendant's motion for reconsideration of a missed pre-trial hearing in a civil case regarding recovery of possession with damages. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant's excuse of a mistaken calendar was invalid and that proper notice was given for the morning hearing. They request that the court deny the defendant's motion for reconsideration due to lack of merit.
This document opposes the defendant's motion for reconsideration of a missed pre-trial hearing in a civil case regarding recovery of possession with damages. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant's excuse of a mistaken calendar was invalid and that proper notice was given for the morning hearing. They request that the court deny the defendant's motion for reconsideration due to lack of merit.
This document opposes the defendant's motion for reconsideration of a missed pre-trial hearing in a civil case regarding recovery of possession with damages. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant's excuse of a mistaken calendar was invalid and that proper notice was given for the morning hearing. They request that the court deny the defendant's motion for reconsideration due to lack of merit.
COME now Plaintiffs, through the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable
Court, most vehemently opposes the defendant’s motion for reconsideration, thus:
1. That defendants and their counsel advance the argument that their failure to attend the schedule pre-trial was due to excusable negligence because they believed that the schedule was in the afternoon;
2. That plaintiffs find the explanation rather flimsy because the notice sent to the counsel and the defendants themselves individually states that the hearing is set at 8:30 o’clock in the morning;
3. Besides, the calendar is owned by the counsel and not by the defendants’, are they implying that the counsel and the defendants share the same calendar?
4. If the calendar of the counsel states that his schedule is in the afternoon, it does not explain why the defendants also failed to appear for the hearing which was set in the morning, wherein they were properly notified. This is very important because appearance of the defendants during pre-trial is mandatory while the counsel’s appearance is not.
5. All told, it is the strong contention of the plaintiffs that the failure of the defendants to appear for pre-trial last February 10, 2009 can in no manner be considered as excusable. 6. Plaintiffs also vehemently register their opposition of the Verification (in the nature of affidavit of good faith) because the same can never be considered as affidavit of good faith. It does not state that they have a valid and meritorious defense aside from the fact that the one who executed it was the counsel and not the defendants themselves.
7. Plaintiffs also vehemently objects to the fact the defendants violated the three-day-notice-rule, the instant motion was received by the counsel on March 6, 2009, the same day the motion was set for hearing.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to deny
defendants’ motion for reconsideration for utter lack of merit.
Cebu City, March 11, 2009
FRANCIS GEORGE F. DINOPOL
Suites 201-205 SRA Building, D. Jakosalem St., Cebu City Roll of Attorneys Number 50084 PTR No. 5441954, 01-07-2009 Cebu Capitol IBP No. 744872, 01-07-2009, Cebu Chapter MCLE Compliance No. II-0014596
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Wilfredo Sentillas
Rm M-05 Sanchez Building, Sancianco St., Cebu City
