Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > June 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 156132 : June 04, 2007] CITIBANK, N.A. AND INVESTORS' FINANCE CORPORATION V. MODESTA R. SABENIANO :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 04 June 2007:

G.R. No. 156132 (Citibank, N.A. and Investors' Finance Corporation v. Modesta R. Sabeniano). - On 16 October 2006, this Court promulgated a Decision on the aforementioned case, ruling that -

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51930, dated 26 March 2002, as already modified by its Resolution, dated 20 November 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, as follows -

1. PNs No. 23356 and 23357 are DECLARED subsisting and outstanding. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to return, to respondent the principal amounts of the said PNs, amounting to Three Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Seven Pesos and Thirty-Four Centavos (P318,897.34) and Two Hundred Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P203,150.00), respectively, plus the stipulated interest of Fourteen and a half percent (14.5%) per annum, beginning 17 March 1977;
   
   
2. The remittance of One Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two US Dollars and Ninety-Nine Cents (US$149,632.99) from respondent's Citibank-Geneva accounts to petitioner Citibank in Manila, and the application of the same against respondent's outstanding loans with the latter, is DECLARED illegal, null and void. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to refund to respondent the said amount, or its equivalent in Philippine currency using the exchange rate at the time of payment, plus the stipulated interest for each of the fiduciary placements and current accounts involved, beginning 26 October 1979;
   
   
3. Petitioner Citibank is ORDERED to pay respondent moral damages in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00); exemplary damages in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00); and attorney's fees in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00); and
   
   
4. Respondent is ORDERED to pay petitioner Citibank the balance of her outstanding loans, which, from the respective dates of their maturity to 5 September 1979, was computed to be in the sum of One Million Sixty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Seven Pesos and Forty Centavos (P1,069,847.40), inclusive of interest. These outstanding loans shall continue to earn interest, at the rates stipulated in the corresponding PNs, from 5 September 1979 until payment thereof.
   

SO ORDERED.

The Court subsequently issued, on 6 February 2007, a Resolution denying for lack of merit (1) petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision, dated 16 October 2006, and (2) respondent's Motion to declare the same Decision already final and executory.

Still unsatisfied with the way this Court had resolved the present case, the respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Decision, dated 16 October 2006, and Resolution, dated 6 February 2007, plus a series of other pleadings, which this Court addressed in another Resolution, dated 23 April 2007, quoted in full hereunder -

G.R. No. 156132 (Citibank, N.A. and FNCB Finance Corporation vs. Modesta R. Sabeniano) - The Court deliberated on respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, Manifestation and Challenge for the Final Decision. It appears to the Court that the motion merely reiterates the same arguments earlier raised and does not present any substantial reason not previously invoked: or any matter not already considered and passed upon by the Court.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the motion for reconsideration with FINALITY for lack of merit and to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the manifestation and challenge for the final decision.

In view thereof, respondent's letter dated 08 February 2007 requesting an investigation of her case is also NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

The Court likewise resolves to DENY for lack of merit respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration dated 13 February 2007 to Reverse Decision February 6, 2007 and to Affirm the Court of Appeals Decision March 26, 2002 Declare Terminated for Execution" which is herein treated as a second motion for reconsideration, considering that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 52 in relation to Section 4, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

In view of said denial, the Court further resolves to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION respondent's:

(1)	"Appeal for Final Reconsideration to Reverse Decision October 16, 2006, February 6, 2007 and Affirm the Court of Appeals Decision March 26, 2002;
(2)	[L]etter dated 15 March 2007 requesting to include in the agenda four (4) appeals dated February1 23, 26, 2007. February 14. 2007, February 12, 2007. and March 2, 2007; and
(3)	Consolidated Position Paper and Rationale on the Four Items Requested to be Calendared dated 03 April 2007.

No further pleading will be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.

Despite the foregoing Resolution, categorically denying respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and directing that WITH FINALITYNO FURTHER PLEADINGS WILL BE ENTERTAINED, respondent still filed another pleading, bearing the title "Urgent Ex-Parte Appeal to the Ultimate Challenge with Complete Summary for Reconsideration," dated 30 April 2007, and regularly beset the ponente with personal letters and telephone calls seeking audience with the latter.

This Court had already THOROUGHLY studied the instant case and PAINSTAKINGLY reviewed each and every evidence on record when it rendered the Decision, dated 16 October 2006. Since petitioners and respondent failed to present any meritorious argument or substantial evidence in their respective motions for reconsideration which had not been previously considered by this Court, this Court was compelled to deny said motions in its Resolutions, dated 6 February 2007 and 23 April 2007.

Once again, this Court emphasizes that it can only be swayed to modify or reverse its Decision by meritorious arguments or substantial evidence, not by pressure from any of the parties. The pleadings, letters, and telephone calls of respondent, no matter how many or how often made, cannot influence this Court if, as in this case, they merely repeat issues and arguments already passed upon in this Court's earlier Decision and Resolutions.

Basic is the rule in our judicial system that litigations must end and terminate at some point, and in the oft-quoted case of Li Kim Tho v. Sanchez,^[1] this Court had explained that -

Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.

In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Velasco,^[2] this Court expounded on the interpretation of the following phrases, used by the courts in their judgments or resolutions, and explicitly found in this Court's Resolution, dated 23 April 2007 concerning respondent's Motion for Reconsideration -

Denial "With Finality"

While the denial of a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order is normally accompanied by the modifier, "final," or "with finality," there may be a denial not so qualified. That is of no consequence. By no means may it be taken as indicating any uncertainty or indecisiveness on the part of the Court regarding its denial of reconsideration, or an encouragement or expectation of a second motion for reconsideration. The modifier serves simply to emphasize the import and effect of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, i.e., that the Court will entertain and consider no further arguments or submissions from the1 parties respecting its correctness; that in the Court's considered view, nothing more is left to be discussed, clarified or done in the case, all issues raised having been passed upon and definitely resolved, and any other which could have been raised having been waived and no longer being available as ground for a second motion. A denial with finality stresses that the case is considered closed.

Prohibition to File Further Pleadings

Apart from the original directive in its Resolution of March 1, 19 [sic], the Court twice reiterated the admonition that no further pleadings, motions or papers should be filed in these cases, except only as regards issues directly involved in the 'Motion for Reconsideration' (Re: Dismissal of Respondent Judge). This it did in its Resolutions dated July 24 and October 25, 1995, respectively.

Evidently, an order of this character is directed to parties who obstinately refuse to accept the Court's final verdict and who, despite such verdict and in defiance of established procedural rules, mulishly persist in still arguing the merits of their cause. They continue to take up the time of the Court needlessly, by filing unauthorized, forbidden, even worthless pleadings, motions and papers, serving no real purpose other than to delay termination of the case.

Evidently, too, the directive against the filing of any further pleadings, motions or papers is one that exacts observance by all parties concerned, such that willful and unjustifiable disregard or disobedience thereof constitutes constructive contempt under Section 3(b), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court...

Respondent should be guided accordingly by the aforequoted jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, respondent's "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to the Ultimate Challenge with Complete Summary for Reconsideration" is hereby NOTED WITHOUT ACTION and is ordered EXPUNGED from the records. It is hereby firmly reiterated that NO FURTHER PLEADING WILL BE ENTERTAINED in this case. Respondent is hereby given a WARNING that she can be held liable for indirect contempt should she persist in disregarding lawful orders of this Court and to commit acts which tend to abuse, obstruct, impede, and degrade the administration of justice.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] 82 Phil. 776, 778 (1949).

^[2] 324 Phil. 483-493.