October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > October 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 151081 : October 26, 2009] TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PAXTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION ,RESPONDENTS. :
[G.R. No. 151081 : October 26, 2009]
TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PAXTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION ,RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 26 October 2009:
G.R. No. 151081 - TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES, INC., petitioner, versus PAXTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION,respondents.
For resolution are the (1) motion for reconsideration[1] dated October 23, 2003 filed by Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit; (2) amended motion for partial reconsideration[2] dated October 28, 2003 of petitioner Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. filed by its new counsel; and (3) motion for reconsideration[3] dated October 29, 2003 and supplement to motion for reconsideration[4] dated December 9, 2003 filed by respondent Baikal Realty Corporation, of this Court's September 11, 2003 Resolution.[5]
In our September 11, 2003 Resolution, we ruled:
I. In their motion for reconsideration, Attys. Gana and Manlangit apologize to this Court for their mistake and inadvertence in failing to state in the Certificates of Non-forum Shopping appended in the motion for extension of time and the petition for review that they still have an unresolved motion pending before the Court of Appeals. They submit that the penalty of suspension of 6 months is not justified as they did not act with intention to deceive any party or any court in acting one way or another.[7]
After a careful study of the motion, we find that the question whether Attys. Gana and Manlangit are guilty of forum shopping had been fully passed upon by the Court in its September 11, 2003 Resolution, and we find no substantial argument in their motion for us to reconsider our Resolution.
Their contention that they prematurely filed the petition for review before this Court[8] had already been found by this Court as not believable for the following reasons: (1) they still sought reconsideration of this Court's Resolutions which denied their motion for extension and petition for review; (2) it took them four months from the time they filed their manifestation and motion before the Court of Appeals before they sought the withdrawal of their petition for review before this Court; and (3) they are estopped from claiming that their recourse to this Court was premature for it was their unwavering representation that the Court of Appeals had already rendered a final and appealable decision when they filed their motion for extension and petition for review before this Court.[9]
Attys. Gana and Manlangit also say that they never deceived the Court of Appeals when they filed the manifestation dated May 30, 2002 and that they merely furnished the Court of Appeals a copy of this Court's Resolution dated April 24, 2002 where this Court noted without action the motion to withdraw the petition for review.[10] Their claim that they merely furnished the Court of Appeals with a copy of said resolution is contrary to the specific finding of this Court that they instigated the Court of Appeals to rule on their December 21, 2001 manifestation and motion when they nonchalantly alleged in one of their manifestations before the Court of Appeals that it may already proceed to resolve said manifestation and motion, despite their knowledge that their petition for review had been denied with finality and that their motion to withdraw such petition was not granted.[11] Attys. Gana and Manlangit, in their instant motion, failed to prove that the Court erred in its finding.
II. In its amended motion for partial reconsideration, petitioner Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. stated that we struck down the Amended Decision dated August 2, 2002 of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the said court's decision dated May 21, 2001 by reason of the violation of the ride on forum shopping by petitioner's previous counsels.[12]
Petitioner misreads our September 11, 2003 Resolution. On page 23 of our Resolution, we clearly said that we had no choice but to set aside the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals for being void on its face. We ruled that when the Court of Appeals rendered the Amended Decision, we had already (1) denied petitioner's motion for extension of time to file petition for review, (2) denied the petition for review, (3) denied with finality petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the adverse Resolutions, and (4) noted without action the motion to withdraw the petition. Hence, the Court of Appeals had lost jurisdiction to rule on petitioner's December 21, 2001 manifestation and motion. Section 15 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals also bluntly affirms that "no motion for reconsideration or rehearing shall be acted upon if the movant has previously filed in the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari or a motion for extension of time to file such petition. If such petition or motion is subsequently filed, the motion for reconsideration pending in this Court shall be deemed abandoned."
Even in the memorandum [13] filed by petitioner, we find no substantial argument to warrant the reconsideration sought. We find nothing therein contesting our ruling that the Court of Appeals had lost its jurisdiction.[14]
III. Regarding the motion for reconsideration and supplement to motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Baikal- Realty Corporation, and its prayer that we uphold its transfer certificates of title over the contested properties,[15] we find the same bereft of merit. First, the grounds [16] relied upon by respondent Baikal have no semblance of pertinence to the conclusions reached by this Court on the issues resolved in the September 11, 2003 Resolution. No substantial argument was raised by respondent Baikal for us to reconsider said Resolution. Second, the Court again notes that respondent Baikal's own recourse to this Court in G.R. No. 151044 assailing the May 21, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60656, the same decision assailed by petitioner in this case (G.R. No. 151081), had failed.[17] Needless to stress, in both cases, this Court had already issued entries of judgment,[18] and in this case (G.R. No. 151081), the Court had also denied with finality the motion to recall entry of judgment.[19]
WHEREFORE, we DENY with FINALITY the (1) motion for reconsideration dated October 23, 2003 filed by Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit; (2) amended motion for partial reconsideration dated October 28, 2003 of petitioner Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. filed by its new counsel; and (3) motion for reconsideration dated October 29, 2003 and supplement to motion for reconsideration dated December 9, 2003 filed by respondent Baikal Realty Corporation, of this Court's September 11, 2003 Resolution.
Accordingly and considering that entry of judgment had already been made in this case (G.R. No. 151081), petitioner's motion to re-open trial dated April 26, 2005 and motion to set case for oral argument dated June 14, 2005, are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.
No further pleadings will be entertained in this case. Let the records of the proceedings in this case be now returned to the court a quo.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Minita Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and Roberto A. Abad (designated additional member per S.O. No. 763 in lieu of Carpio Morales, J., on official business), Members, Special Second Division, this 26th day of October, 2009.
G.R. No. 151081 - TOP RATE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES, INC., petitioner, versus PAXTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION,respondents.
For resolution are the (1) motion for reconsideration[1] dated October 23, 2003 filed by Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit; (2) amended motion for partial reconsideration[2] dated October 28, 2003 of petitioner Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. filed by its new counsel; and (3) motion for reconsideration[3] dated October 29, 2003 and supplement to motion for reconsideration[4] dated December 9, 2003 filed by respondent Baikal Realty Corporation, of this Court's September 11, 2003 Resolution.[5]
In our September 11, 2003 Resolution, we ruled:
WHEREFORE, we Resolve to (a) REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Amended Decision of 2 August 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-60656 and REINSTATE its Decision of 21 May 2001 (affirming in toto the Joint Decision of 13 March 1998 of the RTC-Br. 21, Imus, Cavite; (b) DECLARE Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Maulangit of the Gana and Manlaugit Law Office as well as its client Top Rate Construction and General Services, Inc., in CONTEMPT of this Court and DIRECT Atty. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana, Atty. Elmer E. Manlangit and Top Rate Construction and General Services, Inc., to each pay a fine of P1 0,000.00 within five (5) days from finality of this Resolution; and, (c) SUSPEND from the practice of law Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit for six (6) months effective from finality of this Resolution, with warning that any future violation of their duties as lawyers will be dealt with more severely.
Top Rate Construction and General Services, Inc. shall PAY double costs in this instance. Let copies of this Resolution be attached to the Bar records of Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit, and served upon the Court of Appeals, the RTC-Br. 21, Imus, Cavite, the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, for proper dissemination among its chapters all over the country, and for whatever appropriate action they may deem proper to take under the premises.
SO ORDERED.[6]
I. In their motion for reconsideration, Attys. Gana and Manlangit apologize to this Court for their mistake and inadvertence in failing to state in the Certificates of Non-forum Shopping appended in the motion for extension of time and the petition for review that they still have an unresolved motion pending before the Court of Appeals. They submit that the penalty of suspension of 6 months is not justified as they did not act with intention to deceive any party or any court in acting one way or another.[7]
After a careful study of the motion, we find that the question whether Attys. Gana and Manlangit are guilty of forum shopping had been fully passed upon by the Court in its September 11, 2003 Resolution, and we find no substantial argument in their motion for us to reconsider our Resolution.
Their contention that they prematurely filed the petition for review before this Court[8] had already been found by this Court as not believable for the following reasons: (1) they still sought reconsideration of this Court's Resolutions which denied their motion for extension and petition for review; (2) it took them four months from the time they filed their manifestation and motion before the Court of Appeals before they sought the withdrawal of their petition for review before this Court; and (3) they are estopped from claiming that their recourse to this Court was premature for it was their unwavering representation that the Court of Appeals had already rendered a final and appealable decision when they filed their motion for extension and petition for review before this Court.[9]
Attys. Gana and Manlangit also say that they never deceived the Court of Appeals when they filed the manifestation dated May 30, 2002 and that they merely furnished the Court of Appeals a copy of this Court's Resolution dated April 24, 2002 where this Court noted without action the motion to withdraw the petition for review.[10] Their claim that they merely furnished the Court of Appeals with a copy of said resolution is contrary to the specific finding of this Court that they instigated the Court of Appeals to rule on their December 21, 2001 manifestation and motion when they nonchalantly alleged in one of their manifestations before the Court of Appeals that it may already proceed to resolve said manifestation and motion, despite their knowledge that their petition for review had been denied with finality and that their motion to withdraw such petition was not granted.[11] Attys. Gana and Manlangit, in their instant motion, failed to prove that the Court erred in its finding.
II. In its amended motion for partial reconsideration, petitioner Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. stated that we struck down the Amended Decision dated August 2, 2002 of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the said court's decision dated May 21, 2001 by reason of the violation of the ride on forum shopping by petitioner's previous counsels.[12]
Petitioner misreads our September 11, 2003 Resolution. On page 23 of our Resolution, we clearly said that we had no choice but to set aside the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals for being void on its face. We ruled that when the Court of Appeals rendered the Amended Decision, we had already (1) denied petitioner's motion for extension of time to file petition for review, (2) denied the petition for review, (3) denied with finality petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the adverse Resolutions, and (4) noted without action the motion to withdraw the petition. Hence, the Court of Appeals had lost jurisdiction to rule on petitioner's December 21, 2001 manifestation and motion. Section 15 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals also bluntly affirms that "no motion for reconsideration or rehearing shall be acted upon if the movant has previously filed in the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari or a motion for extension of time to file such petition. If such petition or motion is subsequently filed, the motion for reconsideration pending in this Court shall be deemed abandoned."
Even in the memorandum [13] filed by petitioner, we find no substantial argument to warrant the reconsideration sought. We find nothing therein contesting our ruling that the Court of Appeals had lost its jurisdiction.[14]
III. Regarding the motion for reconsideration and supplement to motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Baikal- Realty Corporation, and its prayer that we uphold its transfer certificates of title over the contested properties,[15] we find the same bereft of merit. First, the grounds [16] relied upon by respondent Baikal have no semblance of pertinence to the conclusions reached by this Court on the issues resolved in the September 11, 2003 Resolution. No substantial argument was raised by respondent Baikal for us to reconsider said Resolution. Second, the Court again notes that respondent Baikal's own recourse to this Court in G.R. No. 151044 assailing the May 21, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60656, the same decision assailed by petitioner in this case (G.R. No. 151081), had failed.[17] Needless to stress, in both cases, this Court had already issued entries of judgment,[18] and in this case (G.R. No. 151081), the Court had also denied with finality the motion to recall entry of judgment.[19]
WHEREFORE, we DENY with FINALITY the (1) motion for reconsideration dated October 23, 2003 filed by Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit; (2) amended motion for partial reconsideration dated October 28, 2003 of petitioner Top Rate Construction & General Services, Inc. filed by its new counsel; and (3) motion for reconsideration dated October 29, 2003 and supplement to motion for reconsideration dated December 9, 2003 filed by respondent Baikal Realty Corporation, of this Court's September 11, 2003 Resolution.
Accordingly and considering that entry of judgment had already been made in this case (G.R. No. 151081), petitioner's motion to re-open trial dated April 26, 2005 and motion to set case for oral argument dated June 14, 2005, are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.
No further pleadings will be entertained in this case. Let the records of the proceedings in this case be now returned to the court a quo.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Minita Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and Roberto A. Abad (designated additional member per S.O. No. 763 in lieu of Carpio Morales, J., on official business), Members, Special Second Division, this 26th day of October, 2009.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 297-305.
[2] Id. at 313-339.
[3] Id. at 340-360.
[4] Id. at 361-375.
[5] Id. at 233-261. Penned by Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo with the concurrence of Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo. Sr. and Dante O. Tinga. This case was subsequently unloaded to a new member of the Court and later on re-raffled.
[6] Id. at 260.
[7] Id. at 297.
[8] Id. at 300.
[9] Id. at 249.
[10] Id. at 303-304.
[11] Id. at 252-253.
[12] Id. at 319-320.
[13] Id. at 437-465.
[14] Id. at 446-447.
[15] Id. at 480.
[16] Id. at 470.
[17] Id. at 241.
[18] Id. at 111; Rollo of G.R. No. 151044, p. 20.
[19] Id. at 225.
