ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 134542.January 17, 2001]

ATTY. DRILON, et al. vs. COSMOPOLITAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH INC., et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2001.

G.R. No. 134542(Atty. Alberto Drilon, et al. vs. Cosmopolitan Evangelical Church [Bacolod City] Inc., et al.)

Before us are private respondents' Follow-Up Manifestation and petitioners' Reply To Follow-Up Manifestation.

Private respondents manifested that in a Decision 1 Justice Ruben T. Reyes, ponente, Justices Andres Reyes, Jr. and Jose L. Sabio. Jr., concurring, Rollo, pp. 221-233.dated June 14, 2000, in the case of Cosmopolitan Evangelical Church, Inc. and Atty. Rinaldo Remitio vs. SEC, Atty. Lyndon P. Cana, Dr. Adelo Daroy, Cecile Onting and Ester Lee, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 41780, the Court of Appeals upheld the Decision in SEC En Banc Case No. 529, also the subject matter of the instant petition, which assails the Court of Appeals Decision 2 Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, ponente, Justices Antonio M. Martinez and Corona Ibay-Somera, concurring, Rollo, pp. 21-27 .dated November 12, 1997, in CA-G.R. SP-No. 41433 upholding the Decision in SEC En Banc Case No. 529.

Private respondents further manifested that at first, The Cosmopolitan Evangelical Church, Inc. and Atty. Rinaldo Remitio (in CA-G.R. SP No. 41780) sought to appeal the said Decision of the Court of Appeals to this Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 143589 of the First Division of this Court, and that on August 28, 2000, the First Division of this Court issued a Resolution which granted therein petitioners' motion to withdraw their petition for review on certiorari and declared the case terminated, thus:

"G.R. No. 143589 (Cosmopolitan Evangelical Church, Inc., et al. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.). - Considering the motion/manifestation of petitioners withdrawing the motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari, the Court Resolves to -

(a) NOTE and GRANT the same; and

(b) DECLARE THIS CASE TERMINATED and DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court to INFORM the parties that the judgment sought to be reviewed has become final and executory." 3 Rollo , p. 245 .

Private respondents submit that the declaration of the First Division of this Court, that the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the decision of the SEC En Banc in Case No. 529 is final and executory, in effect renders the issues in this above-entitled case brought by Atty. Drilon and Rev. Cato moot and academic as they are attacking the same SEC En Banc decision dated July 22, 1996. Private respondents also ask that with the resolution of the First Division of this Court, will there not be a possibility of confusion if another division of this Court renders a decision modifying, or reversing a decision of the SEC En Banc, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and declared final and executory by another division of this Court?

Private respondents pray that in view of the foregoing, the instant petition be denied.

or their part, petitioners argue that the Resolution in G.R. No. 143589 "cannot have a binding effect in this case because the petitioner is different and the respondent in this case, legally speaking, does not exist anymore", and a judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action.

The Court finds private respondents' Follow-Up Manifestation to be well taken.

While the petitioners in the instant petition (G.R. No. 134542) and in G.R. No. 143589 are different, the fact remains that the decision sought to be reviewed in both petitions refer to one and the same decision, - namely, the Decision in SEC En Banc Case No. 529. The decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 41780) of the Court of Appeals upholding the said SEC decision having been declared final and executory in G.R. No. 143589, we can no longer reverse nor modify the herein assailed decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41433 because it involves the same SEC decision. Once a judgment or an order of a court has become final, the issues raised therein should be laid to rest (Salandanan vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 671 [1998]). It is axiomatic that final and executory judgments can no longer be attacked by any of the parties ;or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land (Panado vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 110 [1998]).

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED .

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. 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