ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[
CITIBANK vs. SABENIANO
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 12 2005.
G.R. No. 156132 (Citibank, N.A. and Investors' Finance Corporation vs. Modesta R. Sabeniano.)
The sworn letter dated 31 August 2005 of respondent Modesta R. Sabeniano addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., requesting the implementation of the final decision considering that this case has been pending for more than twenty (20) years, is NOTED.
The afore-mentioned letter is only the latest of a deluge of letters submitted by respondent Sabeniano to the individual members of this Court. She had also made constant telephone calls and personal visits to their Offices. This Court understands respondent Sabeniano's desire for the resolution of the present case as soon as possible. However, her letters, telephone calls, and visits to the members of this Court demonstrate more than just her concern for the status of the case; they have become numerous and frequent enough as to come close to constituting undue pressure on this Court, not just to come out with a Decision, but also to resolve the case in her favor.
This Court will not countenance any abuse of or unlawful interference with its processes or proceedings. It will not be pressured to act one way or another in a case pending before it. Any grievance must be ventilated through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions, or other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to this Court as an impartial administrator of justice, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.1 Respondent Sabeniano must realize that judicial decisions are not issued on pity and sympathy. They are weighed according to the established facts and merits of the arguments of the parties.2
The pleadings in the present case have just been completed. Petitioners Citibank, N.A. and Investors' Finance Corporation submitted its Memorandum on 09 August 2005, which was noted by this Court in its Resolution dated 07 September 2005. Indubitably, there has been no intentional delay on the part of this Court to resolve the present case. This Court merely afforded all the parties ample opportunity to present their arguments and to submit the necessary pleadings, as required by due process.
WHEREFORE, respondent Sabeniano is given a WARNING that she could be held liable for indirect contempt should she persists in committing acts that tend to abuse or unlawfully interfere with the processes or proceedings of this Court.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 75209, 30 September 1987, 154 SCRA 542, 547.
2 Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 112743 and 127215, 12 December 1997, 283 SCRA 145, 158.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
