ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 136606.April 4, 2001]

HEIRS OF CRISTOBAL vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2001

G.R. No. 136606(Heirs of Andrea Cristobal represented by Amado de Leon, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Rosario Lopez and Alicia Santos, respondents.)

On August 31, 1998, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in C.A. G.R. No. 42393 entitled Heirs of Andrea Cristobal, represented by Amado de Leon, Applicants-Appellees, Oppositors-Appellees vs. Rosario Lopez, Oppositor-appellant, Alicia Santos, et al., Oppositors-Appellants, Applicants-Appellants, reversing on appeal the decision of the regional trial court dated July 15, 1993.Copy of the appellate court's decision was received by counsel for the petitioners on September 13, 1998.On September 25, 1998 said counsel filed a motion for a thirty day extension within which to file motion for reconsideration, as she was just released from the hospital, as evidenced by her medical certificate from the Makati Medical Center, and could not possibly file the motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.Within the period of the extension prayed for the motion for reconsideration was filed.

The motion for extension was denied by the appellate court on October 12, 1998.Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with this court docketed as G.R. No. 135959, Second Division, praying for an order to require the appellate court to grant the motion for extension to file motion for reconsideration as an exception to the general rule in view of the seriousness of the counsel's illness, i.e., diabetes, osteoporosis, cervical myalgia, bilateral cerebral ischemic infarcts, and that the motion for extension was not resorted to delay the proceedings.Meanwhile on December 10, 1998, the appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration for having been filed out of time.

This petition for review was filed on February 9, 1999 pleading that the appellate court erred in deciding the merits of the case in favor of the respondents.

On May 11, 2000, the Second Division denied the petition and held that in view of the failure of counsel for the petitioners to file a timely motion for reconsideration, the decision of the appellate court has attained finality.The motion for reconsideration from the decision was denied on July 17, 2000 and the second motion for reconsideration was denied on July 17, 2001 and this Court ordered the issuance of entry of judgment in due course.

In view of the finality of the decision of the Second Division in G. R. No. 135959 which held that the decision of the appellate court has attained finality, this petition which arose from the same decision of the appellate court must perforce be dismissed.The decision of the appellate court can no longer be the subject of review in view of its finality.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE