June 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > June 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No, 178691 : June 30, 2008] JESUS DEPUTO AND MARITESS SAN PABLO V. MALINTA WET-AND DRY MARKET :
[G.R. No, 178691 : June 30, 2008]
JESUS DEPUTO AND MARITESS SAN PABLO V. MALINTA WET-AND DRY MARKET
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 30 June 2008:
G.R. No, 178691 (Jesus Deputo and Maritess San Pablo v. Malinta Wet-and Dry Market). - From the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 23, 2006 and the Resolution denying reconsideration thereof dated June 13, 2.007, notice of which was received by petitioners on June 27, 2007. petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to Perfect Appeal/Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review for thirty (30) days on July 23, 2007. At the same time, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin execution of the judgment. In the Resolution dated August 6, 2007, the Court denied the motion considering that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period under Section 2; Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the petition for review filed on August 22, 2008 was denied.[1] In view of such denial, the Court noted without action[2] the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners of the Resolution dated August 63 2007; hence, this Motion to Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration[3] praying that the Court resolve the case on the merits and not to deny their petition outrightly because of its late filing. Petitioners explained that the delay in filing the Motion for Extension of Tune to file the petition for review was due to the sudden withdrawal of their counsel on the last day of the reglementary period, and they had to look for another counsel to help them with their cause.
It must be noted that in the Resolution dated October 17, 2007,[4] the petition was denied not only for its late filing but the Court considered the merits as well. We have read the petition and all the annexes and, after a careful consideration thereof, the Court found no reversible error in the challenged decision. Petitioners raised anew issues of jurisdiction, alleged non-compliance with prior demand, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and payments of rentals, which have all been properly passed upon by the respondent court in the challenged decision. Parenthetically,.these issues are factual and not within the province of the Court to look into, as only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review on certiorari. We reiterate that there exists no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions made by the municipal trial court, and affirmed by the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals, as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Motion to Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration is NOTED. The Motion for Reconsideration dated October 5, 2007 is DENIED with FINALITY.
(Reyes, J., no part; Puno, C.J., designated member.)
RESOLUTION
G.R. No, 178691 (Jesus Deputo and Maritess San Pablo v. Malinta Wet-and Dry Market). - From the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 23, 2006 and the Resolution denying reconsideration thereof dated June 13, 2.007, notice of which was received by petitioners on June 27, 2007. petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to Perfect Appeal/Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review for thirty (30) days on July 23, 2007. At the same time, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin execution of the judgment. In the Resolution dated August 6, 2007, the Court denied the motion considering that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period under Section 2; Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the petition for review filed on August 22, 2008 was denied.[1] In view of such denial, the Court noted without action[2] the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners of the Resolution dated August 63 2007; hence, this Motion to Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration[3] praying that the Court resolve the case on the merits and not to deny their petition outrightly because of its late filing. Petitioners explained that the delay in filing the Motion for Extension of Tune to file the petition for review was due to the sudden withdrawal of their counsel on the last day of the reglementary period, and they had to look for another counsel to help them with their cause.
It must be noted that in the Resolution dated October 17, 2007,[4] the petition was denied not only for its late filing but the Court considered the merits as well. We have read the petition and all the annexes and, after a careful consideration thereof, the Court found no reversible error in the challenged decision. Petitioners raised anew issues of jurisdiction, alleged non-compliance with prior demand, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and payments of rentals, which have all been properly passed upon by the respondent court in the challenged decision. Parenthetically,.these issues are factual and not within the province of the Court to look into, as only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review on certiorari. We reiterate that there exists no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions made by the municipal trial court, and affirmed by the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals, as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Motion to Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration is NOTED. The Motion for Reconsideration dated October 5, 2007 is DENIED with FINALITY.
(Reyes, J., no part; Puno, C.J., designated member.)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Resolution dated October 17, 2007, rollo, p. 208.
[2] Resolution dated November 28, 2007, id at 213.
[3] Rollo, pp. 214-220
[4] Id at 208.
