June 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > June 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 141309 : June 30, 2009] LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO V. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION :
[G.R. No. 141309 : June 30, 2009]
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO V. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 30, 2009
G.R. No. 141309 (Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation). - Before the Court is respondent's February 2, 2009 Motion for Reconsideration[1] of the December 23, 2008 Resolution[2] in this case.
It may be recalled that on June 19, 2007, the Court rendered the Decision[3] affirming the trial and the appellate courts' uniform ruling denying petitioner Vinzons-Chato's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. CV-97-341-MK. Dissatisfied, she moved for reconsideration on July 20, 2007.[4] The Court, however, issued the April 14, 2008 Resolution denying her motion with finality.[5]
Petitioner then filed, on April 29, 2008, her Motion to Refer [the case] to the Honorable Court En Banc[6] and reiterated her prayer for the reconsideration of the aforementioned decision.[7] On May 30, 2008, she manifested to the Court that she received a copy of the April 14, 2008 Resolution only on May 28, 2008,[8] and that she had no knowledge of the aforesaid resolution at the time she prepared and filed her April 29, 2008 Motion for the referral of the case to the Banc[9] She thus reiterated her motion for referral and prayed that the case be definitively resolved by the Court En Banc, given that the issue involved was one of first impression.
Acting on petitioner's motions, the Court issued the June 25, 2008 Resolution[10] referring the case to the Banc, On July 23, 2008, respondent, arguing in the main that the June 19, 2007 Decision had already attained finality, moved for reconsideration of this resolution.[11]
On November 18, 2008, the Court En Banc resolved to accept the case as referred by the Division.[12] And, on December 23, 2008, it rendered the Resolution granting petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the June 19, 2007 Decision and denying respondent's motion for reconsideration of the June 25, 2008 Resolution. By that Resolution, the Court ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. CV-97-341 -MK pending with the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City.
Aggrieved by these developments, respondent filed the instant motion for reconsideration, raising the following grounds:
At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and before a judgment or resolution therein rendered becomes final and executory, the Division may refer the case en consulta to the Court En Banc.[14] In this case, at the time petitioner filed her motion for the referral of the case to the Banc on April 29, 2008, the Division Resolution (dated April 14, 2008) denying her motion for reconsideration had not yet attained finality, considering that petitioner had yet to receive a copy of the said resolution. She, in fact, manifested that she was only served a copy of the same on May 28, 2008.[15] Further, no entry of judgment was yet issued by the Court in the case. The June 25, 2008 Resolution, therefore, which referred the case to the Banc, is a valid issuance.
Likewise valid is the December 23, 2008 Resolution of the Court En Banc reconsidering the earlier decision. Considered as En Banc cases are those assigned to a Division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the Court En Banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the Court En Banc.[16] It is noted that here, the Court En Banc already accepted the Division's referral of the case on November 18, 2008.[17]
The Court also possesses ample authority to treat the motion for referral as a second motion for reconsideration given that petitioner, in the same motion, reiterated her plea for the reversal of the June 19, 2007 Decision. While it is a settled rule that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, this Court, in not a few instances, even when entry of judgment had already been issued, still entertained a second motion for reconsideration, referred the case to the Banc, and resolved the motion.[18]
Be that as it may, the Court has an inherent power to suspend its own rules, to except a particular case or save a petition from its operations, wherever the demands of justice so require.[19]
As to the other grounds raised in the motion, suffice it to state that the Court has amply addressed them in the assailed resolution and finds no compelling reason to overturn its ruling as stated therein.
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the Court DENIES respondent company's motion for reconsideration WITH FINALITY." (Ynares-Santiago, J., maintains her dissent.)
G.R. No. 141309 (Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation). - Before the Court is respondent's February 2, 2009 Motion for Reconsideration[1] of the December 23, 2008 Resolution[2] in this case.
It may be recalled that on June 19, 2007, the Court rendered the Decision[3] affirming the trial and the appellate courts' uniform ruling denying petitioner Vinzons-Chato's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. CV-97-341-MK. Dissatisfied, she moved for reconsideration on July 20, 2007.[4] The Court, however, issued the April 14, 2008 Resolution denying her motion with finality.[5]
Petitioner then filed, on April 29, 2008, her Motion to Refer [the case] to the Honorable Court En Banc[6] and reiterated her prayer for the reconsideration of the aforementioned decision.[7] On May 30, 2008, she manifested to the Court that she received a copy of the April 14, 2008 Resolution only on May 28, 2008,[8] and that she had no knowledge of the aforesaid resolution at the time she prepared and filed her April 29, 2008 Motion for the referral of the case to the Banc[9] She thus reiterated her motion for referral and prayed that the case be definitively resolved by the Court En Banc, given that the issue involved was one of first impression.
Acting on petitioner's motions, the Court issued the June 25, 2008 Resolution[10] referring the case to the Banc, On July 23, 2008, respondent, arguing in the main that the June 19, 2007 Decision had already attained finality, moved for reconsideration of this resolution.[11]
On November 18, 2008, the Court En Banc resolved to accept the case as referred by the Division.[12] And, on December 23, 2008, it rendered the Resolution granting petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the June 19, 2007 Decision and denying respondent's motion for reconsideration of the June 25, 2008 Resolution. By that Resolution, the Court ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. CV-97-341 -MK pending with the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City.
Aggrieved by these developments, respondent filed the instant motion for reconsideration, raising the following grounds:
The Court denies the motion.I.THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ELEVATE THE INSTANT CASE TO THE EN BANC, AND THE EN BANC HAD NO JURISDICTION TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION OF JUNE 19, 2007, SINCE THE AFORESAID DECISION HAD ALREADY BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY. THE RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 25: 2008 ELEVATING THE CASE TO THE EN BANC, AND RESOLUTION" DATED DECEMBER 23, 2008 RECONSIDERING THE DECISION, ARE BOTH NULL AND VOID FOR HAVING BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.II.THE SUBJECT RESOLUTION CASTRATES SECTION 32 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE AND DEFEATS AND NEGATES THE NOBLE OBJECTIVE FOR WHICH IT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE CIVIL CODE.III.THE COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT CONTAINS FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ON THE SPECIAL AND PARTICULAR INJURY SUFFERED BY IT.IV.THE COMPLAINT LIKEWISE CONTAINS FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SHOWING RESPONDENT'S ENTITLEMENT TO DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CIVIL CODE.V.CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S CONCLUSION, THE RESPONDENT'S COMPLAINT CLEARLY ALLEGES FACTS AND NOT CONCLUSIONS, AND HENCE, A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER.VI.AN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CIVIL CODE IS NEITHER NEGATED NOR PRECLUDED BY THE AVAILABILITY OF REMEDIES UNDER THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.VII.RESPONDENT'S COMPLAINT IS NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.[13]
At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and before a judgment or resolution therein rendered becomes final and executory, the Division may refer the case en consulta to the Court En Banc.[14] In this case, at the time petitioner filed her motion for the referral of the case to the Banc on April 29, 2008, the Division Resolution (dated April 14, 2008) denying her motion for reconsideration had not yet attained finality, considering that petitioner had yet to receive a copy of the said resolution. She, in fact, manifested that she was only served a copy of the same on May 28, 2008.[15] Further, no entry of judgment was yet issued by the Court in the case. The June 25, 2008 Resolution, therefore, which referred the case to the Banc, is a valid issuance.
Likewise valid is the December 23, 2008 Resolution of the Court En Banc reconsidering the earlier decision. Considered as En Banc cases are those assigned to a Division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the Court En Banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the Court En Banc.[16] It is noted that here, the Court En Banc already accepted the Division's referral of the case on November 18, 2008.[17]
The Court also possesses ample authority to treat the motion for referral as a second motion for reconsideration given that petitioner, in the same motion, reiterated her plea for the reversal of the June 19, 2007 Decision. While it is a settled rule that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, this Court, in not a few instances, even when entry of judgment had already been issued, still entertained a second motion for reconsideration, referred the case to the Banc, and resolved the motion.[18]
Be that as it may, the Court has an inherent power to suspend its own rules, to except a particular case or save a petition from its operations, wherever the demands of justice so require.[19]
As to the other grounds raised in the motion, suffice it to state that the Court has amply addressed them in the assailed resolution and finds no compelling reason to overturn its ruling as stated therein.
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the Court DENIES respondent company's motion for reconsideration WITH FINALITY." (Ynares-Santiago, J., maintains her dissent.)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 930-999.
[2] Id. at 903-921.
[3] Id. at 631-645.
[4] Id. at 646.
[5] Id. at 859.
[6] Id. at 860-882.
[7] Id. at 881.
[8] Id. at 885.
[9] Id. at 886.
[10] Id. at 891.
[11] Id. at 893.
[12] Id. at 901-B.
[13] Id. at 931-991.
[14] Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89 which took effect on March 1, 1989.
[15] Supra notes 8 and 9.
[16] Firestone Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 810, 817 (2000), citing Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89; as amended by the Resolution of November 18, 1993.
[17] Supra note 12.
[18] Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 156383, 160723, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 327: 338; Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante, G.R. Nos. 112526, 118S38, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 432, 441; Soria v. Villegas, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1S12, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 13, 20; Manila Electric Company v. Barlis, G.R. No. 114231, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 11, 21-27.
[19] Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, supra, at 338.
