Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > April 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 158149 : April 06, 2007] BANK OF COMMERCE [FORMERLY BOSTON BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES] V. PERLA P. MANALO, ET AL. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 16 APRIL 2007:


G.R. No. 158149 (Bank of Commerce [formerly Boston Bank of the Philippines] v. Perla P. Manalo, et al.)

Before the Court is an Urgent and Verified Omnibus Motion^[1] filed by respondents Manalo on February 13, 2007.

On February 9, 2006, the Court rendered a Decision^[2] in this case granting the Petition for Review, hence, reversing the Decision^[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47458. The fallo of the aforesaid Decision of the Court reads:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOPING, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47458 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 98, is ordered to dismiss the complaint. Costs against the respondents.

SO ORDERED.^[4]

Respondents were thus prompted to file a Motion for Reconsideration^[5] of the said Decision on March 29, 2006. After the petitioner's Comment^[6] and the respondents' Reply^[7] were filed, the Court resolved, on December 11, 2006, to deny the motion for reconsideration with finality considering that the basic issues have already been passed upon and that there is no substantial argument to warrant a modification of the Court's decision."^[8]

Thus, in their Urgent and Verified Omnibus Motion, respondent implore the Court:

(1) TO CLARIFY THE RESOLUTION DATED 11 DECEMBER 2006, WHICH REFERS TO "PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE THE ISSUANCE OF AN ENTRY OF JUDGMENT;

(2) FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO ADMIT THE SAME FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE HONORABLE COURT;

(3) TO INHIBIT THE JUSTICES OF THE HONORABLE COURT'S THIRD DIVISION (FORMERLY MEMBERS OF THE FIRST DIVISION) AND TO REFER THE CASE TO THE COURT SITTING EN BANC;

(4) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE 9 FEBRUARY 2006 DECISION AND 11 DECEMBER 2006 RESOLUTION.^[9]

In a letter to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno dated February 26, 2007, respondents claimed to have perceived "very unusual occurrences" in the Court's Decision.^[10] They alleged that the promulgated Decision is a mere draft as it contains "observable and irregular intercalations purporting to be marginal notations if not pencil corrections.^[11]

After going over the voluminous records of the case and thoroughly taking into account the arguments of the respondents, the Court finds no compelling reason to grant respondents' Urgent and Verified Omnibus Motion and to reconsider its February 9, 2006 Decision and December 11, 2006 Resolution.

Indeed, the confusion brought about by the reference to "petitioner" instead of the "respondents" in the December 11, 2006 Resolution is more apparent than real. The records reveal^[12] (and respondents Manalo admit^[13]) that only one motion for reconsideration of the February 9, 2006 was filed by respondents. The parties are well aware that what is being denied in the December 11, 2006 Resolution is no other than the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondents on March 29, 2006. The reference therefore to "petitioner" in the said resolution is, at best, a mere typographical error. The "observable and irregular intercalations" in the February 9, 2006 Decision are likewise mere typographical errors which in no way affect the substance of the Court's ruling and the outcome of the case.

With regard to respondent Manalo's Second Motion for Reconsideration, incorporation in their Urgent and Verified Omnibus Motion, suffice it to state the same is a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.^[14] Nevertheless, the Court has gone over the arguments raised by the respondents and we find no reason to reverse our February 9, 2006 Decision.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to DENY the Urgent and Verified Omnibus Motion dated February 8, 2007, for lack of merit.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 743-818.

^[2] Id. at 446-471.

^[3] Id. at 75-85.

^[4] Id. at 471.

^[5] Id. at 473-580.

^[6] Id. at 593-653.

^[7] Id. at 669-740.

^[8] Id at. 742.

^[9] Id at 743-744.

^[10] Manalo's letter to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, p. 1.

^[11] Rollo, p. 2.

^[12] Supra note 5.

^[13] Rollo, p. 745.

^[14] RP v. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005, 462 SCRA 265, 277.