July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 170728 : July 19, 2010] D.M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTED BY DELFIN J. WENCESLAO, JR., PETITIONER VERSUS CITY OF PARAÑAQUE, PARAÑAQUE CITY ASSESSOR, PARAÑAQUE CITY TREASURER AND PARAÑAQUE CITY COUNCIL, RESPONDENTS.:
[G.R. No. 170728 : July 19, 2010]
D.M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTED BY DELFIN J. WENCESLAO, JR., PETITIONER VERSUS CITY OF PARAÑAQUE, PARAÑAQUE CITY ASSESSOR, PARAÑAQUE CITY TREASURER AND PARAÑAQUE CITY COUNCIL, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 19 July 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 170728 - D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc., represented by Delfin J. Wenceslao, Jr., petitioner versus City of Para�aque, Para�aque City Assessor, Para�aque City Treasurer and Para�aque City Council, respondents.
RESOLUTION
On October 2, 2006,[1] we granted the parties' joint motion dated July 3, 2006, wherein they prayed that an order be issued by this Court directing them to submit to mediation and that the resolution of the instant petition be deferred until such time that the mediation proceedings shall have been completed.[2]
On June 8, 2009, the Court noted petitioner's submission that the Court of Appeals referred the case back to the Philippine Mediation Center; that on the March 20, 2009 mediation conference, the parties failed to reach any compromise agreement; and that the parties were asked to submit position papers for the mediation conference on April 24, 2009. The Court also noted respondents' compliance.[3]
In another report,[4] petitioner stated that despite the mediation conferences on June 19, 2009, July 31, 2009 and October 9, 2009, the parties failed to agree on the validity and enforceability of the signed and executed Memorandum of Agreement, and that the parties decided to refer the issue on the validity and enforceability of the signed and filed Memorandum of Agreement to the Court of Appeals. In its own compliance,[5] respondent City of Para�aque stated that there being no amicable settlement, the parties agreed that the mediation proceedings be terminated, and that the case and pending motions filed by the parties be remanded to the Court of Appeals for resolution.
Consequently, with the completed albeit unsuccessful mediation, there is no more underlying basis for the Court to further defer its actions on the instant petition.
We also note that the instant petition assails the (1) resolution of the Court of Appeals which dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to pay the required docket fees and (2) resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the only issue for resolution by this Court is: Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to pay the required fees?
Since the respondents had already filed their comment on the petition and petitioner had also filed its reply, this case is now ripe for resolution. If the parties so desire, however, they may file their memorandum on the issue, within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days. After the expiration of said period, with or without the parties' memorandum, we shall consider this case submitted for resolution.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 170728 - D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc., represented by Delfin J. Wenceslao, Jr., petitioner versus City of Para�aque, Para�aque City Assessor, Para�aque City Treasurer and Para�aque City Council, respondents.
On October 2, 2006,[1] we granted the parties' joint motion dated July 3, 2006, wherein they prayed that an order be issued by this Court directing them to submit to mediation and that the resolution of the instant petition be deferred until such time that the mediation proceedings shall have been completed.[2]
On June 8, 2009, the Court noted petitioner's submission that the Court of Appeals referred the case back to the Philippine Mediation Center; that on the March 20, 2009 mediation conference, the parties failed to reach any compromise agreement; and that the parties were asked to submit position papers for the mediation conference on April 24, 2009. The Court also noted respondents' compliance.[3]
In another report,[4] petitioner stated that despite the mediation conferences on June 19, 2009, July 31, 2009 and October 9, 2009, the parties failed to agree on the validity and enforceability of the signed and executed Memorandum of Agreement, and that the parties decided to refer the issue on the validity and enforceability of the signed and filed Memorandum of Agreement to the Court of Appeals. In its own compliance,[5] respondent City of Para�aque stated that there being no amicable settlement, the parties agreed that the mediation proceedings be terminated, and that the case and pending motions filed by the parties be remanded to the Court of Appeals for resolution.
Consequently, with the completed albeit unsuccessful mediation, there is no more underlying basis for the Court to further defer its actions on the instant petition.
We also note that the instant petition assails the (1) resolution of the Court of Appeals which dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to pay the required docket fees and (2) resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the only issue for resolution by this Court is: Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to pay the required fees?
Since the respondents had already filed their comment on the petition and petitioner had also filed its reply, this case is now ripe for resolution. If the parties so desire, however, they may file their memorandum on the issue, within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days. After the expiration of said period, with or without the parties' memorandum, we shall consider this case submitted for resolution.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 330.
[2] Id. at 324-326.
[3] Id. at 353.
[4] Id. at 356-358.
[5] Id. at 415-416.
