July 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > July 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 164527 : July 29, 2008] FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ V. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, R-II HOLDINGS, INC. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL, INC. AND REGHIS ROMERO II:
[G.R. No. 164527 : July 29, 2008]
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ V. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, R-II HOLDINGS, INC. HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL, INC. AND REGHIS ROMERO II
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 29, 2008
G.R. No. 164527 (Francisco I. Chavez v. National Housing Authority, R-II Holdings, Inc. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. and Reghis Romero II)
For resolution is petitioner�s Manifestation and Motion for Clarification dated July 11, 2008 seeking elucidation on wether the filing of the comments of respondents Romero II and National Housing Authority (NHA) has been dispensed with.
In issuing the Resolution dated July 1, 2008 denying petitioner�s motion for reconsideration for finality, the Court considered as waived the filing of the comment of respondent Romero II, whose right to file the same lapsed on December 3, 2007. Likewise, respondent NHA�s comment on petitioner�s Motion for Reconsideration can be dispensed with in view of the lapse of around eight (8) months from October 24, 2007, the date it received the September 25, 2007 resolution requiring its comment.
While petitioner erred in serving NHA�s copy of the Motion for Reconsideration at the NHA Building, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City, the address of record of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, NHA�s counsel, being at the 3rd floor, MWSS Bldg., Katipunan Road, Old Balara, Quezon City, the failure of petitioner to serve has not as it were on the filing of the comments of respondents NHA and Romero II, has become unnecessary.
One last point. A reply to a comment on a motion for reconsideration of the decision is a pleading not normally allowed by the Court and is not a matter of right. It may be dispensed with in the interest of expeditious justice, especially so in this case when the resolution of a related case, G.R. No. 174105, entitled Reghis Romero II, et al v. Senator Jinggoy E. Estrada, et al. involving the Senate investigation of the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project, is intertwined with and dependent on the final resolution of the instant petition.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant Manifestation and Motion for Clarification is NOTED and/or RESOLVED accordingly.
G.R. No. 164527 (Francisco I. Chavez v. National Housing Authority, R-II Holdings, Inc. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. and Reghis Romero II)
For resolution is petitioner�s Manifestation and Motion for Clarification dated July 11, 2008 seeking elucidation on wether the filing of the comments of respondents Romero II and National Housing Authority (NHA) has been dispensed with.
In issuing the Resolution dated July 1, 2008 denying petitioner�s motion for reconsideration for finality, the Court considered as waived the filing of the comment of respondent Romero II, whose right to file the same lapsed on December 3, 2007. Likewise, respondent NHA�s comment on petitioner�s Motion for Reconsideration can be dispensed with in view of the lapse of around eight (8) months from October 24, 2007, the date it received the September 25, 2007 resolution requiring its comment.
While petitioner erred in serving NHA�s copy of the Motion for Reconsideration at the NHA Building, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City, the address of record of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, NHA�s counsel, being at the 3rd floor, MWSS Bldg., Katipunan Road, Old Balara, Quezon City, the failure of petitioner to serve has not as it were on the filing of the comments of respondents NHA and Romero II, has become unnecessary.
One last point. A reply to a comment on a motion for reconsideration of the decision is a pleading not normally allowed by the Court and is not a matter of right. It may be dispensed with in the interest of expeditious justice, especially so in this case when the resolution of a related case, G.R. No. 174105, entitled Reghis Romero II, et al v. Senator Jinggoy E. Estrada, et al. involving the Senate investigation of the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project, is intertwined with and dependent on the final resolution of the instant petition.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant Manifestation and Motion for Clarification is NOTED and/or RESOLVED accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
