ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 129356.August 8, 2001]

PANGASINAN FIVE STAR BUS CO. INC. vs. CA et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2001.

G.R. No. 129356(Pangasinan Five Star Bus Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Rolando Singian.)

On June 3, 1997, petitioner filed with this Court, a motion for extension of fifteen days or until June 18, 1997, to file a petition for review on certiorari to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 29, 1997, in CA-G.R. CV No. 40732. This Court granted said motion. Before the expiration of the reglementary period, petitioner sought again an extension of fifteen days within which to file the petition which was granted. On July 1, 1997, petitioner filed the instant petition. As required by this Court, private respondent filed his comment to the petition, praying that the instant petition be denied for lack of merit. 1 Rollo, p. 128. Instead of filing reply, petitioner and private respondent, assisted by their respective counsel, filed on June 29, 2000, a Joint Manifestation With Motion to Dismiss, 2 Id. at 132-133. which reads as follows:

JOINT MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION TO DISMISS

COME NOW THE PETITIONER AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT in the above-captioned case, through their respective counsel, most respectfully aver:

1. PETITIONER and PRIVATE RESPONDENT have extensively discussed the Resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals dated 6 May 1997 in the light of Petitioner's Petition and Private Respondent's Comment thereon;

2. And after reviewing also the antecedent events that have transpired before and after institution by PETITIONER of his case before the lower courts, the PRIVATE RESPONDENT has come to realize that the same was brought about by a misunderstanding of the facts and wounded feelings only and that it is no longer interested to pursue its counter-claim;

3. For its part, the PETITIONER, cognizance of its rights and obligations under the law have come to terms with the herein PRIVATE RESPONDENT and is also no longer desirous of maintaining or pursuing its Petition.

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing and with all due respect to the Honorable Court, the PARTIES jointly move to dismiss the above-captioned Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Antipolo City for Manila

27 June 2000

PANGASINAN FIVE STAR BUS CO., INC.����������������������������������� (Sgd.) ROLANDO SINGIAN

PetitionerPrivate���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Respondent

By:

(Sgd.) KENNETH ROL

Claims Officer

ASSISTED BY COUNSELS:

CARMELO AND MILLARES LAW OFFICE

Carmelo Compound, Newtown Avenue,

Mayamot, Antipolo City 1820

By:

(Sgd)MEDARDO P. MILLARES(Sgd.)ATTY. BENEDICTOE MARIGUNDON

Counsel for Petitioner�������������������������������������������������� Counsel for Private Respondent

TR No. 4842322/IBP No. 423667����������������� 2nd FIr., Casquejo Bldg. 0083 Quirino Ave.,

Baclaran, Paranaque City 1702

IBP 506316 24/03/2000 PPLM

The Court required the parties to verify and confirm the authenticity of the signatures in the aforesaid joint manifestation with motion to dismiss, it appearing that the signature of Atty. Medardo P. Millares in said joint manifestation is different from his signatures on record and that only a Claims Officer signed for petitioner. 3 Id. at 134. In its compliance dated October 10, 2000, petitioner's corporate secretary, Ramon H. Galian, confirmed the signature of its counsel, Atty. Medardo P. Millares, as appearing in the aforequoted joint manifestation and the authority of its Claims Officer, Mr. Kenneth Rol, to execute the compromise agreement. 4 Id. at 136. On the other hand, private respondent has yet to comply with the order of this Court to confirm the authenticity of his signature in the aforesaid manifestation with motion to dismiss. In the interest of speedy administration of justice, the Court will dispense with this requirement. For we note that private respondent, in his comment, had already sought the denial of the instant petition.

WHEREFORE, as prayed for in the aforequoted Joint Manifestation With Motion to Dismiss, being not contrary to law, good morals, public order or public policy, the motion is noted and granted. The instant petition is deemed withdrawn and the case CLOSED and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com