Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > February 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 169905 : February 06, 2012] ST. PAUL COLLEGE QUEZON CITY, SR. LILIA THERESE TOLENTINO, SPC, SR. BERNADETTE RACADIO, SPC, AND SR. SARAH MANAPOL, SPC v. REMIGIO MICHAEL A. ANCHETA II AND CYNTHIA A. ANCHETA :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 February 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 169905 (ST. PAUL COLLEGE QUEZON CITY, SR. LILIA THERESE TOLENTINO, SPC, SR. BERNADETTE RACADIO, SPC, and SR. SARAH MANAPOL, SPC v. REMIGIO MICHAEL A. ANCHETA II AND CYNTHIA A. ANCHETA). - Acting on the Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer Second Motion for Reconsideration to the Honorable Court En Banc and Very Respectful Motion to Inhibit the Honorable Justice Diosdado M. Peralta dated January 3, 2012 of respondents Remigio Michael A. Ancheta II and Cynthia A. Ancheta, asking this Court to elevate the attached second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc and for Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the ponente in the questioned decision to inhibit himself from this case, this Court resolves to deny the same for lack of merit.

On November 16, 2011, this Court denied with finality, respondents' Motion for Reconsideration dated October 17, 2011 of his Court's decision dated September 7, 2011 on the ground that the basic issues raised in the motion had already been duly considered and passed upon by the Court in the questioned decision and that no substantial argument had been adduced to warrant its reconsideration. Again, the issues raised in the second motion for reconsideration are reiterations of the issues raised in respondents' first motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court En Banc is not an appellate court of decisions rendered by the three Divisions of the Supreme Court. The case^[1] cited by respondent in which this Court granted a third motion for reconsideration is not applicable in this case. Anent the Motion for Inhibition, the same is unmeritorious, as motions for inhibitions are filed before judgments are made and not after their promulgation. Nevertheless, the allegation made in the Motion for Inhibition that the ponente did not write the questioned decision and merely assigned the case to a member of his staff is baseless, unsubstantiated and untrue. The legal staff of Associate Justices of the Supreme Court are tasked to assist the Associate Justices in their legal research in order for the latter to write their ponencias  more efficiently and expeditiously. cralaw

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court DENIES the Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer Second Motion for Reconsideration to the Honorable Court En Banc and Very Respectful Motion to Inhibit the Honorable Justice Diosdado M. Peralta dated January 3, 2012 of respondents Remigio Michael A. Ancheta II and Cynthia A. Ancheta.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12, 2010, 632 SCRA 727.