February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 198129 : February 08, 2012]
GERUNDINO E. CANTILLEP, FRANCISCO BARTOLATA, ELPEDIO JORDAN, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES NUMERIANO VALENCIA AND LORENZA P. VALENCIA, REP. BY CRISTINA ANTONIA VALENCIA
G.R. No. 198129 (Gerundino E. Cantillep, Francisco Bartolata, Elpedio Jordan, et al. v. Heirs of Spouses Numeriano Valencia and Lorenza P. Valencia, rep. by Cristina Antonia Valencia). - On 15 December 2011, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and for Leave of Court to Amend Petition claiming that there is a need to cure the defects of their original Petition through an Amended Petition, "so that concise statements of the matters involved; and the reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition be clearly and properly presented and alleged; and the verification and the certification on non-forum shopping be corrected."[1]
In a second Motion to Admit Amended Petition received by this Court on 16 January 2012, petitioners claim that paragraph 7 of the original petition, was totally amended to present "the questions of law or legal issues presented for resolution."cralaw
The Motion for Reconsideration and for Leave of Court to Amend Petition and the Motion to Admit Amended Petition are denied.
Assuming arguendo that the Amended Petition successfully cures the procedural defects of the original Petition, this should not take away from the reality that the issues raised by petitioners are factual. In fact, the contents of paragraph 7 in the Amended Petition are substantially similar to the contents of paragraph 7 of the original Petition. Petitioners merely used the Amended Petition to expound on and/or to explain further the issues and grounds already raised in the original Petition and already passed upon by this Court when it issued its Resolution. The arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration and for Leave of Court to Amend Petition and the Amended Petition are a mere rehash of the earlier grounds alleged in the original Petition.
One notable new ground raised was their supposed deprivation of due process. It is too late for petitioner to raise these issues for the first time on their Motion for Reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and for Leave of Court to Amend Petition and the Motion to Admit Amended Petition are DENIED with FINALITY. No substantial arguments were raised to warrant the reversal of the questioned Resolution. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 76.