ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 134049.
MARCOPPER vs. SOLIDBANK
SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
R E S O L U T I O N
G.R. No. 134049 (Marcopper Mining Corporation vs. Solidbank Corporation, the Sheriff of em>Manila and Deputy Sheriff Carlos Bajar.)
Respondent Solidbank Corporation seeks a reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated June 17, 2004, which reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44570 and the May 7, 1997 Order of the RTC in Civil Case No. 96-80083, as well as the Writ of Execution issued by the RTC on the basis of the aforesaid Order. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition in this case is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44570 and the assailed Order of the RTC in Civil Case No. 96-80083 dated May 7.1997 and the Writ of Execution issued by the RTC on the basis of the said order, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. [1] cralaw
The respondent cites the following grounds:
A.� THE EXCESSIVE GENEROSITY FOR THE PETITIONER LED THE HONORABLE COURT TO OVERLOOKED (SIC) THE IMPORT OF THE DECISION IT HAS CITED (UY vs. LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, 336 SCRA 419) WHICH UNDERSCORED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING;
B. THE HONORABLE COURT GROSSLY MISAPPRECIATED THE UNREFUTED GROUNDS RELIED UPON BY THE TRIAL COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THE URGENCY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL;
C. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SPECIAL OR COMPELLING REASON TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION THAT WAS PUT UP TO GIVE ASSEMBLANCE OF AN ON-GOING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (sic) WHILE PETITIONER DEVISED A MANNER OF ESCAPING ITS LIABILITY UNDER THE LAW. [2] cralaw
The motion for reconsideration is without merit.
A careful perusal of the motion shows that the arguments
presented therein are mere reiterations, a rehash of the respondent's arguments
in its previous pleadings. The issues raised by the respondent had already been
adequately passed upon in our
Finding no cogent reason to detract from our ruling, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 675-676.
[2] cralaw Id. at 678.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
