June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177806 : June 22, 2010] RODOLFO N. LACSAMANA, PETITIONER, VERSUS HONORABLE TENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND ABELARDO C. VICEO, RESPONDENTS :
[G.R. No. 177806 : June 22, 2010]
RODOLFO N. LACSAMANA, PETITIONER, VERSUS HONORABLE TENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND ABELARDO C. VICEO, RESPONDENTS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated June 22, 2010, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 177806 (RODOLFO N. LACSAMANA, petitioner, versus HONORABLE TENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ABELARDO C. VICEO, respondents)
This resolves the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case filed by petitioner Rodolfo N. Lacsamana.
On 28 May 2007, petitioner filed the instant petition[1] for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction essentially praying for the nullification or reversal of the 7 March 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244 entitled "Abelardo C. Viceo v. Office of the Ombudsman."
On 5 June 2007, the Court dismissed the petition for "non-compliance [with the requirements under Section 65 and other related provisions], particularly for failure to state the material dates showing when the notice of judgment, final order or resolution subject of the petition was received, when a motion for reconsideration, if any, was file, and when notice of the denial thereof was received, to show that the petition was filed on time pursuant to Rule 64, Section 5 in relation to Rule 46, Section 3(2nd paragraph); and considering further that the petitioner is not a party to the CA case where the assailed resolution was issued."[2]
On 12 June 2007, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case. Petitioner alleged that on 5 June 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[3] in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244 dismissing the petition filed by respondent Abelardo C. Viceo. Petitioner prayed for the issuance of the writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction enjoining Abelardo C. Viceo to immediately cease and desist from exercising the duties and responsibilities as Councilor of District II of Manila.
On 19 June 2007, the Court resolved to require the respondents to comment on the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court Of Appeals in the Related Case.
On 2 July 2007, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for the Amendment of the Petition to Exclude the Court of Appeals. Petitioner moved to reconsider the Court's 5 June 2007 Resolution dismissing the instant petition. Petitioner additionally alleged that the 5 June 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244 rendered moot his prayer for the nullification of the 7 March 2006 writ of injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in that case. Therefore, the petition must be amended to exclude the Court of Appeals as one of the respondents.
On 10 July 2007, the Court resolved to deny with finality the motion for reconsideration, "there being no substantial arguments nor compelling reason to warrant the reversal of the questioned resolution."[4]
On 29 August 2008, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing public respondents, filed its Comment on the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case.
On 4 December 2008, respondent Abelardo C. Viceo filed his Comment on the same matter.
Based on the foregoing, the only remaining incident in this case is the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case.
The Resolution of 10 July 2007 denying with finality the motion for reconsideration of hte 5 June 2007 Resolution dismissing the instant petition rendered moot the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case. The petition was dismissed due to petitioner's non-compliance with the requirements under Section 65 and other related provisions governing petitions for prohibition and mandamus. The Court's denial with finality of the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition must be construed as a termination of the present case.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals rendered an Amended Decision on 14 September 2007, granting respondent Viceo's motion for reconsideration, in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244. The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals is subject of a petition for review (G.R. No. 181597) pending before the Third Division of this Court. This development highlights the mootness of the pending incident since petitioner's manifestation involves the original decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244.
At any rate, petitioner gravely failed to show that he is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the petition. In his Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for Amendment of the Petition to Exclude the Court of Appeals, petitioner prayed for the exclusion of the Court of Appeals as one of the respondents. There was no specific allegation that the remaining respondents, excluding the Court of Appeals, committed acts warranting the remedies of prohibition and mandamus.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to note without action the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case and to consider the present case closed and terminated."
"G.R. No. 177806 (RODOLFO N. LACSAMANA, petitioner, versus HONORABLE TENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ABELARDO C. VICEO, respondents)
R E S O L U T I O N
This resolves the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case filed by petitioner Rodolfo N. Lacsamana.
On 28 May 2007, petitioner filed the instant petition[1] for prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction essentially praying for the nullification or reversal of the 7 March 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244 entitled "Abelardo C. Viceo v. Office of the Ombudsman."
On 5 June 2007, the Court dismissed the petition for "non-compliance [with the requirements under Section 65 and other related provisions], particularly for failure to state the material dates showing when the notice of judgment, final order or resolution subject of the petition was received, when a motion for reconsideration, if any, was file, and when notice of the denial thereof was received, to show that the petition was filed on time pursuant to Rule 64, Section 5 in relation to Rule 46, Section 3(2nd paragraph); and considering further that the petitioner is not a party to the CA case where the assailed resolution was issued."[2]
On 12 June 2007, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case. Petitioner alleged that on 5 June 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[3] in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244 dismissing the petition filed by respondent Abelardo C. Viceo. Petitioner prayed for the issuance of the writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction enjoining Abelardo C. Viceo to immediately cease and desist from exercising the duties and responsibilities as Councilor of District II of Manila.
On 19 June 2007, the Court resolved to require the respondents to comment on the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court Of Appeals in the Related Case.
On 2 July 2007, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for the Amendment of the Petition to Exclude the Court of Appeals. Petitioner moved to reconsider the Court's 5 June 2007 Resolution dismissing the instant petition. Petitioner additionally alleged that the 5 June 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244 rendered moot his prayer for the nullification of the 7 March 2006 writ of injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in that case. Therefore, the petition must be amended to exclude the Court of Appeals as one of the respondents.
On 10 July 2007, the Court resolved to deny with finality the motion for reconsideration, "there being no substantial arguments nor compelling reason to warrant the reversal of the questioned resolution."[4]
On 29 August 2008, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing public respondents, filed its Comment on the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case.
On 4 December 2008, respondent Abelardo C. Viceo filed his Comment on the same matter.
Based on the foregoing, the only remaining incident in this case is the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case.
The Resolution of 10 July 2007 denying with finality the motion for reconsideration of hte 5 June 2007 Resolution dismissing the instant petition rendered moot the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case. The petition was dismissed due to petitioner's non-compliance with the requirements under Section 65 and other related provisions governing petitions for prohibition and mandamus. The Court's denial with finality of the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition must be construed as a termination of the present case.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals rendered an Amended Decision on 14 September 2007, granting respondent Viceo's motion for reconsideration, in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244. The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals is subject of a petition for review (G.R. No. 181597) pending before the Third Division of this Court. This development highlights the mootness of the pending incident since petitioner's manifestation involves the original decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92244.
At any rate, petitioner gravely failed to show that he is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the petition. In his Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for Amendment of the Petition to Exclude the Court of Appeals, petitioner prayed for the exclusion of the Court of Appeals as one of the respondents. There was no specific allegation that the remaining respondents, excluding the Court of Appeals, committed acts warranting the remedies of prohibition and mandamus.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to note without action the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation Re-Rendered Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Related Case and to consider the present case closed and terminated."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-28.
[2] Id. at 115.
[3] Id. at 128-138.
[4] Id. at 176.
