ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 158970.
YAP vs. QUEENSLAND TOKYO COMMODITIES, INC.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 158970 (Edward Yap vs. Queensland Tokyo Commodities, Inc.)
In the Resolution of
Petitioner now moves for
reconsideration of said resolution, praying that the timeliness of his petition
be reckoned from July 25, 2003, the date when he actually received a copy of
the Resolution dated June 27, 2003 of the Court of Appeals denying his motion
for reconsideration, not from July 8, 2003, the date when his counsel, Atty.
Senen Jose Duadico, allegedly received the same.He claims that on
In its comment,
respondent observes that petitioner failed to address the grounds cited by the
Court in denying his petition, and instead, merely raised matters that muddled
the issues.It opined that petitioner's
request that the timeliness of his petition be reckoned from the date of his
alleged receipt of the assailed resolution, is a mere attempt to free himself
from the effects of his counsel's shortcomings, and at best, are merely
self-serving.There is also nothing to
prove that petitioner was not advised by his counsel of the adverse resolution
of the Court of Appeals, it appearing that petitioner himself, without the
assistance of counsel, undertook the filing of a motion for extension and
petition for review.Even assuming that
the motion for extension was seasonably filed, respondent argues that
petitioner nonetheless failed to comply with the other requirement mentioned by
the Court in its Resolution of
The Court finds the
allegations in the motion for reconsideration not to be well taken.Petitioner cannot invoke the alleged
negligence of Atty. Bubong as reason for his non-compliance with the rules
considering that Atty. Bubong had been effectively discharge as counsel even
before the Court of Appeals resolved the motion for reconsideration.Neither can the Court accede to the request
of petitioner that the timeliness of his petition should be reckoned from the
date when he received a copy of the Resolution dated
WHEREFORE , the motion for reconsideration of petitioner is DENIED with FINALITY, there being no compelling reason to warrant the reconsideration sought.The incorporated motion for leave to file amended petition for review on certiorari and motion for automatic inclusion of additional parties, charges and evidence are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH