1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Makati City
Branch 63

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintif,

- Versus - Criminal Case No. 372097-100

For: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22

HECSEL SORIANO BACTING,

Accused.
X * * * * * * * X

COMMENT / OPPOSITION
(To Accused Urgent Motion for Clarification and
to Suspend Payment [dated: November 13, 2013])
With
MOTION FOR EXECUTION

COMES NOW, the Private Complainant, in the above-

entitled case, by and through the Undersigned Counsel and
unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

By way of Comment / Opposition to Accused Urgent

Motion for Clarification and to Suspend Payment:

1. That the obligation of accused under the

compromise agreement approved by the Honorable Court
per its Order dated September 5, 2013, is different from the
accused obligation in that Civil Case accused refers to
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133, which
is P1,072, 971. 20.

2. That the obligation of accused in this case,

originally P687, 608.80 which was reduced to P500, 000.00
per the approved compromise agreement, is covered by the
subject checks in this case, while accused obligation which
she refers
 2

to before said Regional Trial Court of Makati City is not

covered by checks, or, no checks were issued for the
payment and/or satisfaction of the obligation in the case
before said Court;

3. The obligation of accused in that case before the

Makati City Regional Trial Court is purely civil while her
obligation in this case is her civil liability which arose or
emanated from the criminal action and/or case;

4. That the Honorable Court has already given its

stamp of approval to the Compromise Agreement by virtue
and on the strength of its Order dated September 5, 2013
which is ipso jure a Judgment based on Compromise
Agreement with the force and effect of Res Judicata. Thus,
suspension of payment of accused obligation under the
judicially approved compromise agreement is not warranted
and a mislaid remedy at this late point of time. A
compromise agreement once approved by order of the court
becomes immediately final and executory with the force of
res judicata. The courts sanction imbues it with the same
effect as any other judgment. (ROLANDO LIMPO Vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, G.R.
No. 144732, February 13, 2006 citing: Esguerra Vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 119310, February 3, 1997 and Abarintos
Vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113070, September 30, 1999).
Indeed, a decision based on a compromise agreement is
immediately final and executory. (LAZARO PASCO and
LAURO PASCO Vs. HEIRS OF FILOMENA DE GUZMAN,
CRESENCIA DE GUZMAN-PRINCIPE, G.R.
No. 165554, July 26, 2010);

5. That besides, since the Order dated September 5,

2013 of the Honorable Court has the effect of res judicata,
the terms and conditions set forth in the
Compromise
 3

Agreement, as approved by the Court, are

controlling. (ROLANDO LIMPO Vs. COURT OF APPEALS and

SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, G.R. No. 144732,
February 13, 2006, citing: Cuizon Vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 102096, August 22, 1996), hence, the terms and
conditions of the compromise agreement should not be
disturbed, touched or interrupted by suspending the
payment of accused obligation under the same. A
compromise agreement once approved by final order of the

court has the force of res judicata between the parties and

should not be disturbed (SPS. JESUS AND LOLITA MARTIR

Vs. SPS. RAYMUNDO AND PURA VERANO, G.R. No. 170395,
July 28, 2006)

6. That in the same vein or by reason of the

foregoing disquisitions, with due respect, the Honorable
Court, the Honorable Court may not rule on whether private
complainant should clarify the nature of accused obligation
in that case before the Honorable Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Branch 133 (Civil Case No. 12-654) for
that is a matter that properly pertains to said Honorable
Court specially so that the Order of this Honorable Court
dated September 4, 2013 is a Judgment based on
Compromise Agreement and has the force and effect of res
judicata which does not warrant suspension of payment of
accused obligation under the same;

7. It may not be amiss to state that the nature of

accused obligation in Civil Case No. 12-654 before
Honorable Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133 is a
matter that may be clarified before said Court and not before
this Honorable Court. Accused is burdening the Honorable
 4

Court on ruling on a matter that properly pertains to another

Court;

8. A Compromise Agreement, Once stamped with

judicial imprimatur, it becomes more than a mere
contract

binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court

and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has
the force and effect of any other judgment. (SPS. JESUS
AND LOLITA MARTIR Vs. SPS. RAYMUNDO AND PURA VERANO,
G.R. No. 170395, July 28, 2006);

By way of Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Execution:

9. That on September 5, 2013, the Honorable Court

issued an Order which Approved the Compromise Agreement
of Private Complainant and Accused, which Order is a
Judgment based on said Compromise Agreement;

10. That accused failed to comply with her obligation

based on the Compromise Agreement;

11. That the Writ of Execution should be issued to

enforce and / or implement the Order dated September 5,
2013 which is a Judgment based on the Compromise
Agreement or to enforce accused obligation under the
parties Compromise Agreement.

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:

a. This Comment / Opposition with Motion for the

Issuance of Writ of Execution be given due weight and
credence and be Granted;
 5

b. Accused Urgent Motion for Clarification and to

Suspend Payment, dated November 13, 2013, be DENIED for
utter lack of merit;

c. That a Writ of Execution be issued to enforce and /

or implement the Order dated September 5, 2013 which is a
Judgment based on the Compromise Agreement or to
enforce accused obligation under the parties Compromise
Agreement.

Private Complainant prays for other reliefs and

remedies just and equitable under the premises.

City of Manila for Makati City, November 25, 2013.

ATTY. LEOPOLDO P. DELA ROSA

Counsel for the Private Complainant
Suite 307 CCI Building
1091 Concepcion Street
Ermita, Manila
PTR No. No. 1476454 / 1-18-2013
IBP No. 906971 / 11-28-2012
Roll No. 28195
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020667
June 13, 2013

NOTICE

The Branch Clerk of Court

MTC, Branch 63
Makati City

Atty. Edgardo C. Soriano

SORIANO AND TELEBRICO LAW OFFICES
Room 405 Imperial Palace Suites
Timog Avenue corner Tomas Morato, Quezon City
 6

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Makati City

Greetings

Please take notice that Undersigned Counsel will submit the

foregoing Motion for the kind consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court on November _______ , 2013 at _______ .

ATTY. LEOPOLDO P. DELA ROSA

EXPLANATION

This is to certify as an Officer of the Court that a copy of this

COMMENT / OPPOSITION was served, not by personal service but by
registered mail as herein-below indicated by reason of time, distance, lack
of manpower and urgency.

ATTY. LEOPOLDO P. DELA ROSA

Copy furnished:

Atty. Edgardo C. Soriano

SORIANO AND TELEBRICO LAW OFFICES
Room 405 Imperial Palace Suites
Timog Avenue corner Tomas Morato, Quezon City

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Makati City
7