Petitioners,

Case No. 1234

--versus--

Respondents.

x------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration dated 21 February
2011 filed by petitioners through counsel seeking to reconsider the
Decision dated 04 January 2011 the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment

is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant petition for
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

SO ORDERED. “

In the motion, petitioners allege that: petitioners admitted that the

respondents are their tenants and the allegation was not impugned by the
respondents and as a matter of fact, respondents did not file a responsive
pleading; tenancy relationship can even be implied from the actual
relationship of the parties; the evidence of subleasing by respondent is
supported by evidence which is the Kasulatan ng Hirmana ng Salapi at
Bukid and was never controverted; in sum, the evidence presented by the
petitioners are uncontroverted and lead to the conclusion that indeed the
respondents committed the complained act.

In an Order dated 22 February 2011, the respondents were given

five (5) days to file their Comment/Opposition to the instant motion.

In the hearing conducted on 15 March 2011, respondents’ counsel

manifested that the parties are willing to amicably settle their case. Thus, in
the Order issued on the same date, parties were given ten (10) days to file
their written agreement. However, despite the lapse of the given period, no
written agreement was submitted by the parties.

In an Order dated 22 February 2016, the motion was submitted for

resolution.

After careful consideration of the contentions of the parties, this

Board finds that the instant motion if bereft of merit.

In the case of Republic of the Philippines Represented by the

National Telecommunication Commission (NTC) v. International
Communication Commission (ICC)1, the Court held:

“Among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is

addressed is precisely to convince the court that its ruling is
erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or evidence.”
xxxx (emphasis supplied)

The assailed Decision sought to be reversed has been carefully and

exhaustively been deliberated and considered by this Board before it was
rendered.

Undoubtedly, the petitioners failed to persuade this Board that the

assailed Decision is erroneous, contrary to the law or evidence.
Furthermore, no new matter was raised that merits the modification or
reversal of the assailed Decision.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant motion is

DENIED. The Decision dated 04 January 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. _________________.

1
495 SCRA 192