Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region
BRANCH 42
Dumaguete Ctiy
AN YOUNG JU, et. al.
Petitioners,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO.2014-14924

FOR:INDIRECT CONTEMPT

KIM HYE JUNG, et. al.

Respondents.
x------------------------------x

Motion for Reconsideration

Petitioners by counsel, unto the honorable court most respectfully state that:
1. Petitioner seeks a reconsideration of the honorble courts decision dated December 22,
2014 dismissing the petition.
2. With all due respect to the honorable court, petitioner disagrees with the court when it
said that respondent Kim Hye Jung was not a party in interest in Spec. Pro. No. 2014-5164.
3. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit (Sec. 2, Rule 3, Rules of Court).
4. By the above definition of a real party in interest, respondent Kim Hye Jung can be
considered as a real party in interest for she stands to benefit from the compromise agreement
entered in to in Spec. Pro. No. 2014-6164. She was able to gain access to the Korean
Compound and was even successful in driving out petitioners from the compound. It is
noteworthy that Lee Jung Seng and Kim Min Ju had already left the country which is not in
harmony with a person who has a real interest over a real property which in this case is the
Korean Compound.
5. Although respondent Kim Hye Jung was not a signatory to the compromise agreement, it
was to her benefit that petitioners in Spec. Pro. No 2014-5164 granted access to the Korean
Compound.
6. Though she did not automatically become a party to the above mentioned case, by
signing the petition for Habeas Corpus and having an underlying interest in the case and over
the Korean Compound, respondent Kim Hye Jung is a real party in interest and is bound by the
agreement.
7. Kim Hye Jung is obligated to comply with the compromise agreement which came about
by her signing and filing the Habeas Corpus case. It would be unfair for petitioners if Kim Hye
Jung is allowed to file the Habeas Corpus case and would not be bound by the courts orders or
decisions.
8. As a real party in interest, Kim Hye Jung is bound by the stipulations in the compromise
agreement.
9. Petitioners submit that the literal meaning of the agreement should be taken into
consideration in interpreting the contract, however, in the interest of justice, the court cannot
turn a blind eye to the fact that respondent Kim Hye Jung had underlying interests over the
Korean compound and intended to drive petitioners out of possession and access to the same
which became evident in what happened on May 24, 2014.
10. There is no denying that petitioners had free ingress and egress to the compound prior
to May 24, 2014. However, it would now seem that petitioners rights to that same ingress and

egress to the compound can no longer be enforced as the real parties interest are no longer in
the compound other than respondent Kim Hye Jung and her other companions.
11. The second stipulation in the agreement provides that petitioners and respondents may
hire their own security personnel to guard the premises.
12. In its the decision the court submits that this part of the stipulation would give any
semblance of right to the petitioners.
13. Petitioners believe that this second stipulation gives them the right place their own
security guards in the compound. This stipulation in the agreement was clearly violated when
even the security personnel of respondents are denied access to the compound.
14. Petitioners are at the very least, entitled to place their own security personnel in the
compound in order to protect whatever residual rights they may have over the compound.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this honorable
court that the decision dismissing the petition be reconsidered in whole or in part to allow
respondents to place their own security personnel to guard the compound as stipulated in the
agreement.
All other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.
December 29, 2014.
Antonio Marlon Eric I. Dejaresco
Counsel for petitioner
106 EJ Blanco Drive, Dumaguete City
Roll No. 62796
IBP No. 968584, April 24, 2014Manila
PTR No. 0748218, May 20, 2014
MCLE: Exempt until 2016
Notice and Explanation
Please be notified that the foregoing motion will be submitted for consideration and
approval by the honorable court without need of further arguments by counsel.
Due to the impracticality of personal service due to the distance of the undersigneds
present address, service was effected through registered mail.
Antonio Marlon Eric I. Dejaresco
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Karissa Faye R. Tolentino
2/F Villareal Hall, Silliman University Campus