Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City

THIRD DIVISION

JOURNAL EMPLOYEES UNION

(JEU) AND IN BEHALF OF ITS
MEMBERS AFFECTED,
Complainants,

- versus - NCMB NCR NS 07-251-

02
NLRC CC NO. 000229-02
For: Quieting of Title
Encroachment and
Damages

PHILIPPINE JOURNALIST, INC.

(PJI) ET AL.,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THIRD-PARTY CLAIMANT, EUGENIA I. ABANIA, of legal age, Filipino,

single and a resident of Block10, Lot 15, Camella Homes, Phase 1, Muntinlupa

City, by herself to this Honorable Court, respectfully state that:

1. On _______________________, Third-party Claimant received a

copy of the Order of this Honorable Commission of the above captioned case

dated 12 November 2008, the dispositive portion of which states to wit:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Third Party Claim

is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Let the sheriffs of the Commission proceed with the levy.
SO ORDERED”

2. Third Party Claimant has until _________ within which to file their

Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, this Motion for Reconsideration is filed

within the reglementary period.

 3. Moreover, under RULE VII, Section 15 of THE 2005

REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION, this Motion for Reconsideration is

sanctioned.

4. This Motion for Reconsideration is respectfully moved for on the

following grounds:

a. IN DENYING THE THIRD PARTY CLAIMANTS OF THEIR

OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PERSONAL AND REAL

PROPERTIES ON THE MERE GROUND THAT NOT A SINGLE

EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP WAS PRESENTED TO PROVE

SUCH CLAIM.

b. IN HOLDING THAT THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT /SALE

EXECUTED BY AND BETWEEN RESPONDENT HEREIN,

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. (PJI) AND THIRD PARTY

CLAIMANTS, WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED BUT WAS ONLY USED

AS A TOOL TO PREVENT THE EXECUTION OF THE

JUDGEMENT

ARGUMENTS AND/OR DISCUSSION

A. WHETHER OR NOT THE DENIAL OF

THE THIRD PARTY CALIM IS VALID
MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT NO
EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP WAS
PRESENTED TO PROVE SUCH RIGHT
OVER THE REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTIES IN THE ABOVE-
MENTIONED CASE.

With due respect to this Revered Commission, the decision rendered is

not in accord with the precepts of justice and fairness nor in the much-avowed

principles of equity particularly on the findings of the court that third party

claimants’ right of ownership over some of the levied properties in this case is
void, hinging merely on the absence of evidence presented by herein third party

claimants.

From the onset, it is known that the third party claim filed before this

Honorable Commission was executed by Eugenia Abania and Michelle Ayanco in

the pursuit of protecting their ownership rights. These rights, with all conviction,

can be proven with evidence that has already been brought before the court in

the third party claim with no need for more substantiation to be presented. The

third party claim as offered before is significant enough in attaining that which

has been prayed for; and, even from what has been thoroughly asserted in the

third party claim, the third party claim can, as a matter of fact, be established and

ascertained in the third party claimants’ support.

Now, it is asked of this Honorable Commission, being an opportune time

for us to bring yet again before this Humble Body these evidences and

supporting documents, as follows:

a. Memorandum of Agreement dated 21 December 2004, copy

attached as “Annex A”. This document proves that Abania and

Ayangco extended a loan to PJI in the amount of P33364889.19

with interest at twelve percent per annum payable on March 15,

2006, and that in the event that PJI shall fail to pay the loan as well

as the interest due thereon on March 15, 2005, Augusto B.

Villanueva shall cause PJI to transfer and convey to Eugenia I.

Abania and Michelle F. Ayangco PJI’s real and personal properties,

machinery and equipment, motor vehicles and other assets

sufficient to fully pay the loan and the interest due thereon, as well

as the trademarks titles of all its publications such as People’s

Journal, People’s Journal Tonight, People’s Taliba, Women’s

Journal, People’s Insider; provided, however, that PJI shall be

allowed to use the machinery and equipment as well as said titles

for a periods of two years from the execution of the Deed of Sale.
 b. Deed of Assignment dated 15 March 2005, copy attached as

“Annex B”, proves the fact that PJI assigned and transferred all the

rights, titles and interest in and to the trademarks/titles of all its

publication such as People’s Journal, People’s Journal Tonight,

People’s Taliba, Women’s Journal, People’s Insider to Eugenia I.

Abania and Michelle F. Ayangco.

One of the main arguments offered going against the third party claimants’

favor is on why these properties are not yet in the third party claimants’ name,

and on why the third party claimants were not the ones who applied with the

Department of Trade and Industry for the Certificates of Registration of the

Trademarks.

This query as to why the trademarks in particular are not registered in the

name of the third party claimants also came to notice on the latter party’s part. As

a result thereof, the third party claimants paid a visit to the respondent

corporation’s office to ask on why such a situation occurred to the quandary of

the third party claimants themselves. An explanation was made stating among

others that it has escaped from their knowledge that an assignment of the

trademark and all the rights thereof did in actuality exists. In reiteration to their

statements, as far as can be committed to memory, it was acknowledged by the

company that they were so caught up with the daily responsibilities in the

corporation and in the ephemeral understanding of not being able to go about

with the registration of the subject trademarks, the company inadvertently, hastily

and without further contemplation had the said trademarks recorded in the

corporation’s name. In the understanding that it is their responsibility that such a

mistake should be corrected not for the third party claimants themselves but most

significantly for the sake of the corporation itself, such narration of the truth of the

circumstances surrounding such unwittingly erroneous registration of trademark

was proffered for and, consequently, admitted the oversight.

 Even in comprehensive disregard of the above arguments, it is of

significance to note that a Deed of Assignment in actuality exists. The tenacity of

the argument that if the third party claimants are the real owners of the subject

trademarks they should have already registered such under their name is of

naught. Worth noting is the fact that in the case of UNNO COMMERCIAL

ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED vs. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION

and TIBURCIO S. EVALLE, G.R. No. L-28554 February 28, 1983, it is stated

therein, to wit:

“x x x The Deed of Assignment itself constitutes sufficient proof of

its ownership of the trademark ("All Montana,") x x x “

xxxxxxxxxx

“x x x ownership of a trademark is not acquired by the mere fact of

9
registration alone. Registration merely creates a prima facie

presumption of the validity of the registration, of the registrant's

ownership of the trademark and of the exclusive right to the use

thereof. Registration does not perfect a trademark right.x x x”

In due consideration of the aforementioned jurisprudence, it can be

succinctly said that the fact of the registration is not the only evidence that can

prove or disprove the right of ownership over such a trademark. A Deed of

Assignment which is valid and complete in its form and is in fact notarized by a

commissioned notary public is well and enough a proof of one’s ownership of a

trademark. It goes without saying that a Deed of Assignment is a document or

agreement which an assignor (the transferor) states his promise that from the

date of the assignment or any date stipulated therein, the assignor assigns his

ownership in that property to the assignee (transferee). Thus, a Deed of

Assignment can indubitably resist a critical assessment on its being able to prove

that ownership does rightfully belongs to the assignee. In application to the case

at hand, the Deed of assignment executed by and between the respondent

corporation in the case herein and the third party claimants are enough proof of

their ownership over the disputed properties.

In the light of the foregoing, these arguments as presented and

documents as attached are asked by the third party claimants to be considered

by this Honorable Commission so as to prove that the third party claimants are

the rightful owners of the properties as enunciated in the third party claim which

are subject to the levy issued pursuant to the main case herein.

B. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEED OF

ASSIGNMENT /SALE EXECUTED BY
AND BETWEEN RESPONDENT
HEREIN, PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS,
INC., AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMANTS,
WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED BUT WAS
ONLY USED AS A TOOL TO PREVENT
THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT.

The third party claimants are emphatic in denying that the executed Deed

of Assignment/Sale by and between respondent, Philippine Journalists, Inc., and

third party claimants was not implemented but was only used as a tool to prevent

the execution of the judgment. This pronouncement by the Honorable

Commission may seem, with all esteem, to be unjustified and precipitate for the

time being. It was decided on the part of the commission that evidence on our

part were lacking so as to hold water on our claims, neither were they on

asserting that Ms. Abania and Mrs. Ayangco were simply used as a tool to

prevent the execution of judgment. It would seem to be too harsh an imputation

that the third party claimants are just an implement to impede the orderly

execution of justice. Mere suppositions must not be used so as to verify

something as fact, what could have been pursued by the dignified Commission is

to cull more evidentiary matters on the basis of our claims before such verdict is

released. Certainly it would defy logic to indulge in a mere supposition or

probability; we are entirely acquiescent for the commission to weight evidences

that we are willing to bring before this humble body in support to our third party

claim.
 This Humble Commission may be of the impression that the obligations

that PJI had with the third party claimants were supported without any

consideration at all. This is not the case, going back to the rudiments of a valid

cause and considerations of a contract as provided for in the New Civil Code.

Article 1350 of the New Civil Code Provides, viz:

“ Art. 1350. In onerous contracts the cause is understood to

be, for each contracting party, the prestation or promise of a thing

or service by the other x x x”

This article denotes that cause is the essential reason which moves the

parties to enter into a contract. As stated in the case of Basic Books (Phils.),

Inc. vs. Lopez, et. al., (15 SCRA 291), It is the immediate, direct and proximate

reason which justifies the creation of an obligation through the will of the

contracting parties.

Thus, it can be stated that though at the onset there might not have been

a corporeal cause or consideration on the agreement, the Memorandum of

Agreement, attached as “Annex A”, embodies the promise that in the event that

PJI shall fail to pay the loan as well as the interest due thereon on March 15,

2005, Augusto B. Villanueva shall cause PJI to transfer and convey to Eugenia I.

Abania and Michelle F. Ayangco PJI’s real and personal properties, machinery

and equipment, motor vehicles and other assets sufficient to fully pay the loan

and the interest due thereon, as well as the trademarks titles of all its

publications such as People’s Journal, People’s Journal Tonight, People’s Taliba,

Women’s Journal, People’s Insider. Accordingly, it can not be nay said that the

promise as afore-mentioned, is a valid consideration which makes the contract

binding between the parties.

The reason that this humble commission might have in stating that PJI

assumed the obligation of Villanueva for no consideration at all is the fact that the

act of Augusto B. Villanueva in entering into the Memorandum of Agreement with

the third party claimants, being merely one of the stockholders of the company,

cannot be considered as an act of the corporation itself and thus what might have
been entered is not binding on the latter. This argument is not plausible. In the

case of INTER-ASIA INVESTMENTS INDUSTRIES, INC. vs. COURT OF

APPEALS and ASIA INDUSTRIES, INC.( G.R. No. 125778), citing the case of

People’s Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (297

SCRA 170), it is stated therein, to wit:

“x x x A corporate officer or agent may represent and bind

the corporation in transactions with third persons to the extent that

[the] authority to do so has been conferred upon him, and this

includes powers as, in the usual course of the particular business,

are incidental to, or may be implied from, the powers intentionally

conferred, powers added by custom and usage, as usually

pertaining to the particular officer or agent, and such apparent

powers as the corporation has caused person dealing with the

officer or agent to believe that it has conferred.

xxx

[A]pparent authority is derived not merely from practice. Its

existence may be ascertained through (1) the general manner in

which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the

power to act or, in other words the apparent authority to act in

general, with which it clothes him; or (2) the acquiescence in his

acts of a particular nature, with actual or constructive knowledge

thereof, within or beyond the scope of his ordinary powers.”

In conjecture to the above jurisprudence, we can asseverate that Augusto

B.Villanueva, has the apparent authority to enter into the said Memorandum of

Agreement with the third party claimants seeing that this act has been

acquiesced with actual knowledge thereof by the Philippine Journalists, Inc.,

since Philippine Journalists Inc., in its Resolution dated March 10, 2005,

assumed the obligation of Augusto B. Villanueva. It is stated in such document

that in the event that Philippine Journalists, Inc. fails to pay the loan and the
interest due thereon on March 15, 2005, the corporation undertakes to transfer

and convey to Eugenia I. Abania and Michelle F. Ayangco its real and personal

properties, machinery and equipment, motor vehicles and other assets sufficient

to fully settle the loan and the interest due thereon, as well as the

trademarks/titles of all its publication. Hence, Philippine Journalists, Inc. having

expressly consented to the said agreement between the third party claimants and

Mr. Augusto B. Villanueva, questions as to this matter must be laid to rest.

For these reasons, this Honorable Commission erred in totally

discounting the facts and circumstances of the third party claimants. In

formally considering the attached annexes of this motion, third party claimants

should be able to fully substantiate their claim that indeed ownership of the

subject personal and real properties is theirs and that the attachment or levy

thereof should be foregone with on these critical grounds so as not to deprive the

latter parties with what is properly theirs under the law.

Having established that there is evidence of ownership so as to prove

such right by the third party claimants over the real and personal properties and

that the Deed Of Assignment/Sale executed by and between respondent herein,

Philippine Journalists, Inc., and third party claimants was not used simply as a

tool to prevent the execution of the main case herein, third party claimants are

entitled to the recognition of their ownership rights.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, third-party claimants respectfully

pray of the Honorable Court to:

1. RECONSIDER, REVERSE and SET ASIDE the assailed Decision dated

12 November 2008;

2. enter a new one declaring third party claimants, Eugenia I. Abania and

Michelle F. Ayangco, as the lawful owners of the properties subject

herein;

3. lift the Alias Writ of Execution pertaining to the subject properties;

 Third Party Claimants further pray for such other reliefs and remedies as

are just and equitable under the premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Makati City, ___ March 2009

EUGENIA I.
ABANIA
Third Party Claimant