ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 132334. February 22, 1999]

OSCAR DE LEON, et al. vs. AMANDO G. IMPERIO, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 22, 1999.

G.R. No. 132334 (Oscar de Leon, et al. vs. Armando G. Imperio, et al.); G.R. Nos. 133956-58 (Teodorica Factor, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

These two cases were consolidated pursuant to the resolution of 15 July 1998 in G.R. Nos. 133956-58, it appearing that, as petitioners therein declared in the opening paragraph of their petition, "[G.R. Nos. 133956-58] is related to G.R. No. 132334 (Oscar de Leon, et al. vs. Amando G. Imperio, et al.)... [G.R. Nos. 133956-58] raises substantially the same issues raised in G.R. No. 132334 and affects substantially the same realties as those involved in the said G.R. No. 132334." Moreover, petitioners in G.R. Nos. 133956-58 admit that some of them are likewise parties in G.R. No. 132334.

G.R. Nos. 133956-58 is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which challenges the resolution of 3 February 1998 of the Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 32815 and 35320, which, in turn: (a) rejected the consolidation of said cases with CA-G.R. CV No. 55339, the consolidation having been earlier ordered by the Fifteenth Division of said Court on 14 November 1997; and (b) directed that the Rollo of CA-G.R. CV No. 55339 be returned to the Fifteenth Division. A motion to reconsider the challenged resolution was denied on 2 June 1998 by the Special Sixteenth Division.

On the other hand, G.R. No. 132334 is an appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside the 31 October 1997 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 52037, entitled Oscar de Leon, et al. vs. Amando G. Imperio, et al.

After consolidation of these cases before this Court, the Office of the Solicitor General, upon motion, was excused from filing a Comment on the petition in G.R. No. 132334. Among private respondents-individuals, only the Spouses Benito and Corazon Lopez and the Spouses Pepito and Violeta Ng filed a Comment, while private respondent Pilar Development Corporation's Comment was subsequently noted. As such, this Court deems it fit to dispense with the filing of a Comment by the other private respondents, as the issues are now properly joined.

After deliberating on the issues raised and arguments adduced in the petition, the Comment of respondents Spouses Benito and Corazon Lopez and Spouses Pepito and Violeta Ng and the Reply thereto, as well as the Comment of Pilar Development Corporation, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition in G.R. No. 132334 for failure of petitioners to sufficiently show that public respondent Court of Appeals committed reversible error in its challenged decision so as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case. Besides, the core issue is factual, and petitioners failed to show any extraordinary or compelling circumstance justifying a departure from the established doctrine that findings of facts of public respondent Court of Appeals are conclusive on this Court and will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal.

As to G.R. Nos. 133956-58, petitioners miserably failed to show that any grave abuse of discretion attended the challenged resolution of public respondent Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 132334 is DENIED and the petition in G.R. Nos. 133956-58 is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE