COMMENT
(Re: “Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution”)
The ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully states:
1. During the hearing held on May 9, 2017 at about 8:00 PM while waiting for this case to be called, the accused, who is the former Chairman of xxx, xxx City, and Mr. xxx, the authorized representative of the private complainant xxx Financing Corporation, agreed in principle on the following matters:
(a) Mr. xxx told the accused that he had filed the pending motion for writ of execution as a ministerial formality and as a stand-by means to effect continuing payments of the judgment debt on the part of the accused;
(b) If and when the writ of execution is issued by the Court, the private complainant would not aggressively pursue its implementation by the Court Sheriff so long as the accused regularly pays the private complainant One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) weekly (every Friday) as an act of good-faith compliance;
(c) Expressing his apology to Mr. xxx, the accused informed that latter that from February 2013 to April 2017 he had been intermittently hospitalized every six to seven months due to his cardio-vascular (heart) ailment and chronic pulmonary asthma.
The accused informed Mr. xxx that he had undergone a major cardio-vascular angioplasty operation in September 2015 at the xxx Medical Center in xxx City.
The accused informed Mr. xxx that he had been confined in the same hospital every six to seven months from 2013 to 2017 because of his chronic pulmonary asthma.
The accused informed Mr. xxx that his aforementioned continuous confinements had depleted his family savings. He had to rely on his mother and siblings for financial assistance.
The accused furnished Mr. xxx photocopies of his medical and hospitalization records for the said period. Mr. xxx acknowledged the documents with compassion.
(d) The private complainant would deduct from the obligation of the accused the amounts that may be paid in the future in installments to the private complainant by the four real borrowers whom the accused had vouched for as their Barangay leader and co-maker.
The accused was the lead issuer of the postdated checks subject matters of this BP Blg. 22 case.
The real borrowers are xxx (former xxx secretary), xxx (former xxx), xxx (former xxx), and xxx (incumbent xxx).
Mr. xxx confirmed this fact. The private complainant recently filed separate collection cases against the said persons based on the same financial transaction subject matter of this case. They are pending in the Metropolitan Trial Courts of xxx City.
2. The accused acknowledges that it is the ministerial duty of the Court, as per Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to issue, upon motion, a writ of execution based on a violation of a judgment upon compromise.
3. The accused nonetheless invokes the sense of compassionate and merciful justice of the Court in light of the foregoing facts.
He humbly leaves his fate to the kind and sound discretion of the Court and to the mercy of the Divine Providence.
For the record. Respectfully submitted.
Xxx City, xxx 2017.
