March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 181969 : March 19, 2012]
ROMAGO, INC. v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
G.R. No. 181969 (Romago, Inc. v. Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.). - In the Decision dated October 2, 2009, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in confirming the arbitral award rendered by the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (PDRCI) in favor of the respondent in the amount of P16,937,612.68 plus interest; attorney's fees of P500,000.00 and P916,300.04 for costs of arbitration. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration with finality in the Resolution dated April 28, 2010 after finding that the motion was merely a rehash of the arguments in the petition. Entry of Judgment and return of case records to the CA were made on August 27, 2010 and October 26, 2010, respectively.
Undaunted by these adverse actions of the Court, the petitioner has filed and continue to file several pleadings and motions seeking reconsideration from the Court, i.e. urgent motions for reconsideration, second motion for reconsideration, appeal to the en banc, referral to en banc, motion for clarification/partial reconsideration, etc. The petitioner persistently alleges in the main that the instant "construction dispute" falls under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) and not the PDRCI. The Court has ruled and which we find no compelling reason to reverse, that the petitioner can not impugn the jurisdiction of the PDRCI after submitting itself and participated actively in the proceedings before it. The Court has repeatedly frowned upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.[1]
We reiterate what we have stated that "public interest demands an end to every litigation, and a belated effort to re-open the case that has already attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration of justice."[2]
Considering that entry of judgment has already been made in this case and the records of the case have been returned to the CA, the Court resolved to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION petitioner's:
- Second Very Urgent Motion for Early Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated March 23, 2011 and to refer the case en consulta to the Court en banc filed by counsel for the petitioner, dated September 26, 2011;
- Motion with Leave of Court for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated October 12, 2011) filed by counsel for the petitioner, dated December 15, 2011;
- Aforesaid Letter [A plea for study by the Court en banc] dated December 1, 2011, addressed to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, requesting the inclusion of the attached motion (very urgent, motion addressed to the Court En Banc to take cognizance of the instant case, dated December 1, 2011) in the Agenda of the Court En Banc;
- Letter dated January 2, 2012 of counsel for petitioner requesting the referral to the Office of the Chief Justice for proper consideration and appropriate action the attached very urgent motion with leave of court addressed to the Court En Banc;
- Aforesaid Very Urgent Motion, with Leave of Court, addressed to the Court en banc to direct the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati, to hold in abeyance execution proceedings in Special Proceeding No. M-6039 and to observe the Temporary Restraining Order issued on April 2, 2008 pending consideration by the Supreme Court of petitioner's motions filed on December 1, 2011 and December 15, 2011;
- Motion for Leave to File and Admit the Attached Amended Motion with Leave of Court for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated October 12, 2011) filed by counsel for the petitioner, dated January 9, 2012;
- Aforesaid Amended Motion with Leave of Court for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated October 12, 2011) dated December 15, 2011);
- Motion, with Leave of Court, for Reconsideration and Clarification of the Resolution dated December 14, 2011 filed by counsel for petitioner, dated February 10, 2012;
- Letter dated February 17, 2012 of counsel for the petitioner, addressed to the Clerk of Court, En Banc, requesting the referral of the Office of the Chief Justice and Court En Banc the (1) motion for leave to file, admit, and reiterate the attached very urgent motion addressed to the Court En Banc to take cognizance of the instant case and (2) very urgent motion addressed to the Court En Banc to take cognizance of the instant case;
- Aforesaid Motion for Leave to File, Admit and Reiterate the Attached Very Urgent Motion addressed to the Court En Banc to take cognizance of the instant case, dated February 14, 2012;
- Aforesaid Very Urgent Motion addressed to the Court En Banc to take cognizance of the instant case, dated February 14, 2012.
The 1st Indorsement dated 6 December 2011 of the Office of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. referring for appropriate action the Letter dated December 1, 2011 of Ma. Aurelia P. Florentino, Executive Vice-President of Romago, Inc., is NOTED. NO FURTHER PLEADINGS WILL BE ENTERTAINED IN THIS CASE.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Vicarville Realty & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134339, February 5, 2001.[2] Decision promulgated on October 2, 2009.