ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 97556 & 101152. September 11, 2000]
DAMASO FLORES vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 11 2000.
G.R. No. 97556 & 101152 (Damaso Flores vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)
On July 29, 1996, the Court rendered a decision dismissing the consolidated petitions (G.R. No. 97556 & 101152) for lack of merit. In resolving the protracted dispute between the parties as to who has the rightful possession of the Para�aque Cockpit Stadium, the Court finally deposed that:
It is not disputed that private respondent is now the owner of the Para�aque Cockpit Stadium. Neither is it disputed that petitioner was found by final and executory judgment to be obligated to private respondent in the amount of more than a million pesos. Petitioner cannot deny that he had already benefited from the proceeds of the loans that he obtained from private respondent, nor can he dispute the right of private respondent as present owner of the said stadium to posses the same and terminate the lease contract of petitioner with the stadium's former owners. Ultimately, all petitioner has is an order by the Court of Appeals directing private respondent to return the stadium to petitioner because the latter was a lessee-operator thereof and private respondent came to possess the same through a void order granting execution pending appeal. As we earlier said, the force of such order or any court order for that matter, profoundly lies not so much in its factual existence as a judicial imperative but in its inherent essence as a judicial determination of what is right and just under the particular circumstances under consideration by the Court. We so hold, as it cannot be denied, that petitioner no longer has any right to possess the Para�aque Cockpit Stadium, and that without such right, the court order, even one that is final and executory, has became baseless and of no further force and effect. x x x 1 Rollo , pp. 827-828; underlining ours .
Unable to accept the Court's adjudication, petitioner filed a first motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated September 25, 1996 after finding no substantial argument to warrant a modification of the Court's decision.2 Id ., at 740.
The motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and the aforementioned second motion for reconsideration were filed but were denied in the Resolution dated November 27, 1996.3 Id., at 847. Consequently, on December 11, 1996, the decision became final and executory. In the Resolution dated January 13, 1997, entry of judgment was thereby ordered effected with the admonition that "No Further Pleadings shall be entertained herein."4 Id., at 870.
On January 28, 1997, petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion to: Motion to Reconsider Resolution dated November 27, 1996.5 Id ., at 882. At the same time, private respondent filed a Motion to Cite Damaso Flores and news editor Danny Hernandez of People's Journal in direct contempt for making insinuations in said newspaper that the disposition of the instant case in favor of private respondent has been manipulated thereby undermining the integrity of the court.6 Id ., at 892.
In the Resolution of February 24, 1997, the Court merely RESOLVED to EXPUNGE from the records the aforesaid pleadings considering that: a) Entry of Judgment has already been made; and that b) the Court ordered in the January 13, 1997 Resolution that no further pleadings shall be filed.7 Id ., at 907.
Undaunted, the petitioner filed more pleadings after, which were likewise all ordered EXPUNGED from the records:8 Resolutions dated April 7, 1997 and July 28, 1997.
1. Omnibus Motion dated February 7, 1997;
2. Letter dated March 3, 1997;
3. Appeal for Justice;
4. Letter dated May 2, 1997 addressed to the Chief Justice requesting for the latter's intervention.
Finally, on August 11, 1997, the Court issued a Resolution stating that "the Court Resolved to consider these cases DEFINITELY CLOSED and TERMINATED. No Further Pleadings shall be entertained herein."9 Rollo , p. 940.Notwithstanding, several more pleadings were filed, to wit:
1) Manifestation (rollo, p. 942);
2) Motion to set aside the Decision dated July 29, 1996 the subsequent Resolution and the Entry of Judgment (rollo, p. 947);
3) Motion for clarification (rollo, p. 1029);
4) Humble Submission (rollo, p. 945);
5) Motion for leave to file notice to re-open the case. (rollo, p. 974);
6) Motion to re-open the case (rollo, p. 977.);
7) Letter to the Chairman entitled "Reiteration of appeal for justice" (rollo, p. 1005);
8) Letter to CJ Narvasa Request for Intervention (rollo, p. 1013)
9) Motion for Early Resolution of Alternative Motion to Lift the Entry of Judgment & Refer the case to the Hon. Court En Banc (rollo, p. 1053)
10) Letter Appeal to CJ Davide (rollo, p. 1067)
11) Manifestation (rollo, p. 1071)
12) Motion for leave to file attached motion to reconsider the Resolution dated August 30, 1999 and aforesaid motion for reconsideration (rollo, p. 1083)
13) Motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 27, 1999 and the aforesaid motion for reconsideration
14) Letter dated December 7, 1999 for a reversal of the decision in the cases (see January 24, 2000 Resolution, p. 1103)
15) Motion for leave to file the attached motion for reconsideration of the resolution of January 24, 2000 and said motion for reconsideration (see Resolution of March 13, 2000, rollo, p. 1116)
Obviously, petitioner is unfazed by the warnings given by the Court in our Resolutions dated January 13, 1997 and August 11, 1997 that the instant case is considered closed and that no further pleadings shall be filed. In our August 30, 1999 Resolution we have warned petitioner, once again, not to file further pleadings lest he shall be cited in contempt of court. Notwithstanding, petitioner has persistently filed several pleadings after. The Court cannot countenance such defiance any longer. Let it be noted, however, that before these pleadings were expunged from the records, the Court has taken a look at the arguments set forth and a cursory reading reveals that these are merely repeated assertions which have already been considered by the Court in its July 29, 1996 Decision and the subsequent Resolutions denying the first and second motions for reconsideration.
There must be an end to every controversy and the Court has written finis to the dispute between the parties which have been going on for such a long time now. As we have ruled in Ortigas & Co. v. Velasco, 10 254 SCRA 234 (1996). the refusal of petitioner to concede defeat, manifested by the unceasing attempts to prolong the final disposition of the case, obstructs the administration of justice and, therefore, constitutes contempt of court.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court RESOLVED to cite petitioner DAMASO FLORES for contempt of court for willful disregard and disobedience of the Resolutions of the Court. A penalty of REPRIMAND is hereby imposed upon petitioner with the warning that any subsequent disregard and disobedience of this Court's orders will be dealt with more severely.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
