Motion for clarification

When a judgment rendered by a court or a quasi-judicial body contains vague and confusing statements which are susceptible of misinterpretations which may lead to potentially serious procedural and substantive problems in the future execution thereof upon its finality, the procedural remedy of the handling counsel is to file a motion for clarification. I wish to share such a pleading with my readers for legal research purposes. I represent the complainant homeowners association, et. al. in a case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Thus:

AMENDED COMPLIANCE AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (In Re: NOTICE OF RESOLUTION, Dated March 1, 2010)


THE COMPLAINANTS, by counsel, respectfully state:

1. By way of compliance with the last paragraph of the Notice of Resolution, dated March 1, 2010, of this Honorable Board, the undersigned counsel for the complainants respectfully manifests that on Mach 15, 2010 he received from this Honorable Board via registered mail a photocopy of its aforecited Notice of Resolution, together with a photocopy the Resolution itself, dated February 11, 2010.

2. The aforecited Resolution (a) denied the Motions For Reconsideration filed by the parties to the instant case and (b) affirmed the DECISION, dated February 15, 1996, of this Honorable Board (typed as February 16, 1996 in the dispositive part of the said Resolution).

3. The complainants respectfully wish to CLARIFY certain parts of the dispositive portion of the aforementioned Resolution, dated February 11, 2010.

4. Paragraph 1 of the dispositive portion of the affirmed Decision, dated February 15, 1996, ordered the private respondents xxx and xxx “to fully develop the subdivision project within ninety (90) days from finality of (the) Decision and thereafter a fine of P1,000.00 for each day of failure to develop the same”.

5. The complainants humbly beg the kind indulgence of this Honorable Board in respect of aforementioned Par. 1 of the dispositive portion of the said Decision.

Correct us if we are wrong but the aforecited Decision does not seem to clearly specify the period during which the said private respondents’ duty to fully develop the subdivision must be completed.

It seems to merely specify the date on which the said private respondents must commence to perform such duty (i.e., within 90 days from finality of the Decision).

For this reason, the complainants respectfully seek the kind clarification of this Honorable Board to facilitate and systematize the execution stage of the said Decision.

6. Further, Paragraph 2 of the aforecited affirmed Decision ordered the complainants “to immediately resume payments of amortizations with interest and penalty charges to the NHMFC pursuant to the Loan and Mortgage Agreements upon finality of this decision”.

7. The complainants humbly beg the kind indulgence of this Honorable Board in respect of aforementioned Par. 2 of the dispositive portion of the said Decision.

Correct us if we are wrong but the aforecited Decision does not seem to clearly specify the date on which the computation of the individual interests and penalties of the complainants should commence.

The said Par. 2 orders the resumption of the payment of the amortizations upon finality of the said Decision but it does not similarly specify that the computation of their individual interests and penalties should likewise commence only upon such finality date.

For this reason, the complainants respectfully seek the kind clarification of this Honorable Board to facilitate and systematize the execution stage of the said Decision.

8. Paragraph 3 of the aforecited Decision “declar(ed) the NHMFC’s right to collect amortization payments from complainants and to foreclose the mortgages upon failure of the latter to pay within the period pursuant to the Loan and Mortgage Agreement(s)”.

Par. 3 does not specify that the right of the NHMFC to collect the amortizations from the complainants shall commence only upon finality of the said Decision (to harmonize with the clear language and intent of Par. 2 of the said Decision which ordered the complainants to resume payments of their amortizations upon finality of the said Decision).

Further, Par. 3 does not specify that the duty of the complainants to resume and complete the payments of their individual amortizations must be specifically performed within the balance of their individual amortization periods as stipulated in their individual Loan and Mortgage Agreements (i.e., which balance must be reckoned from the time of finality of the aforementioned Decision and Resolution and not from the time when the complainants validly suspended their individual payments sometime in 1993 due to the confirmed violations of the private respondents and pursuant to existing housing laws and jurisprudence). Otherwise, if we count the balance of the period from 1993, when the complainants validly suspended their amortization due to the violations of the private respondents, such a computation would be unfair, unjust, illegal and unconscionable and not in harmony with the intent and spirit of the said Decision and Resolution.

9. This motion for clarification is being filed because of the fears that have been created in the minds of the complainants by various official communications received by them since last year via registered mail from the Asset Management Department of the NHMFC stating that the NHMC had allegedly foreclosed the housing units of the complainants for alleged nonpayment of their amortizations, without regard for the legal pendency of the instant case before this Honorable Board.

10. The NHMC and the HIGC (as public respondents in the instant case) have not been formally furnished by this Honorable Board with official copies of the Decision, dated February 15, 1996, and the Resolution, dated February 11, 2010, of this Honorable Board to enlighten, clarify and correct the misconception and lack of knowledge of the Asset Management Department of the NHMFC about the pendency of the instant case and the legal effects and consequences of the said Decision and Resolution insofar as the legal rights and interests of the complainants in their individual housing units are concerned. For this reason, there is a need for this Honorable Board to furnish the NHMFC and the HIGC with official copies of the aforementioned Decision and Resolution.

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and in the interest of facilitating and systematizing the future execution stage of the instant case, the complainants respectfully pray:
(a) That the Decision, dated February 15, 1996, which was affirmed by the Resolution, dated February 11, 2010, be CLARIFIED based on the foregoing clarificatory questions and issues raised in the body of this motion; and
(b) That the public respondents NHMFC and the HIGC be furnished with official copies of the aforementioned Decision and Resolution of this Honorable Board as well as the future Resolution of this Honorable Board in respect of this clarificatory motion in order to reiterate in the minds of the said public respondents the fact of the pendency of the instant case and in order to clarify with the said public respondents the legal effects and consequences of the pendency of the instant case and of the final resolution thereof insofar as the powers and jurisdictions of the said public respondents and insofar as the legal rights and interests of the complainants in relation to their individual housing units are concerned .
Las Pinas City, March 20, 2010.



MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Roll No. 33640, April 27, 1985
IBP Lifetime Member No. 1907
IBP PPLM Chapter
PTR No. 9957969, 1/4/10, Las Pinas
MCLE Compliance No. III-2280


NOTICE OF HEARING


Atty. Ma. Luisa Pangan
Head, Appeals Review Group
BOC, HLURB

Mabuhay:

For the kind consideration and approval of the Honorable Board upon receipt hereof, without further oral arguments.
Thank you.


MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.

Cc:

Atty. Xxx
Lead Counsel for the Private Respondents

Atty. Xxx
Collaborating Counsel for Private
Respondents

President
NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE
FINANCE CORP. (NHMFC)

Manager
Legal Department
NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE
FINANCE CORP. (NHMFC)

Manager
Asset Management Department
NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE
FINANCE CORP. (NHMFC)


EXPLANATION

This pleading is served on opposing parties via registered mail due to the distance of their respective offices.


Manuel J. Laserna Jr.