ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 122544.March 21, 2001]
DIZON et al. vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 21 2001.
G.R. No. 122544(Regina Dizon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.) and
G.R. No. 124741(Regina Dizon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)
The case was called for hearing at 9:35 a.m.
The following appeared for the parties:
(1) for the petitioners- Atty. J. Keith Nieto, Atty. Michelle' Lazaro and Retired Justice Manuel M. Lazaro; and
(2) for private respondent Overland Express Lines, Inc.- Atty. Leopoldo Africa, Atty. Agustin Benitez and Retired Justice Oscar Herrera.
The Court laid down the issues for oral argument as follows:
1. WHETHER THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD JUSTIFY SUSPENSION OF THE RULES OF COURT;
2. WHETHER THE SUM OF P 300,000.00 RECEIVED BY ALICE DIZON FROM PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS INTENDED AS PARTIAL PAYMENT OF THE. PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY, OR AS PAYMENT OF BACK RENTALS ON THE PROPERTY;
3. WHETHER ALICE DIZON WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE SUM OF P 300,000.00 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS;
4. (A) IF SO, WHETHER PETITIONERS ARE ESTOPPED FROM QUESTIONING THE BELATED EXERCISE BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT OF ITS OPTION TO BUY WHEN THEY ACCEPTED THE SAID PARTIAL PAYMENT;
(B) IF SO, WHETHER ALICE DIZON CAN VALIDLY BIND PETITIONERS IN THE ABSENCE OF A WRITTEN POWER OF ATTORNEY;
5. (A) WHETHER THERE WAS A PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES;
(B) WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTRACT OF SALE AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE SHARES OF FIDELA AND ALICE DIZON; AND
6. WHETHER� PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE HAS PRESCRIBED.
Atty. Agustin Benitez argued for private respondent Overland Express Lines, Inc.. At the outset, he stressed that he is seeking the suspension of the rules on finality of judgment, as he believes the Court has the discretion to do so for compelling reasons. He called the attention of the Court to the cases wherein the Court did not hesitate to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operation whenever the interest of justice require it to avoid miscarriage. In these cases, formalistic adherence to the rules was set aside. In this case, he submitted that finality of a judgment is not a hindrance in order to modify, reverse or set aside the same if only to harmonize that judgment with justice and the facts of the case which is more in keeping with the interest of substantial justice.
Citing as justification is the fact that private respondent paid P 300,000.00 to Alice Dizon who received the same in behalf of petitioner Fidela Dizori. This, he insisted, showed a perfected contract of sale between petitioners and private respondent or at least a contract of sale with respect to the shares of Fidela and Alice Dizon. The precise tenor of the receipt signed by Alice A. Dizon for Fidela Dizon memorialized the intent and is the operative act that gave rise to a perfected contract of sale and bound the other co-owners (the other petitioners herein). That such was the intent is shown by the transcripts of stenographic notes taken in the unlawful detainer case (Exhibit "A' for private respondent). In addition, the act of petitioner in increasing the amount of rentals from P1,700.00 to P 8,000.00 a month is a deceitful ploy engaged by them in order to eject private respondent from the premises.
As to the findings of the Court that there is no showing that petitioners consented to the act of Alice Dizon, he argued that it is directly contradicted by the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and ignoring the same will not only violate Art. 1317 of the Civil Code, which expresly allows an implied ratification of the contract by the person in whose behalf it was entered into, but also Art. 1405 which similarly provides that acceptance of the benefits under the unauthorized contract ratifies it, in consonance with the provisions of Art. 1868 which expressly declares that agency may be express or implied from the acts of the principal.
Retired Justice Manuel M. Lazaro argued for petitioners and expressed concern in allowing a new set of lawyers to argue in behalf of the private respondent without the consent of the lead counsel. He also called the Court's attention to the fact that private respondent Overland is no longer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commissions (Exhibit "1" for petitioners). As to the finality of the decision of this case, he maintained that the same should be recognized as there is no showing of any justifying circumstances that would warrant modifying or reversing the same much less overturning it specially considering the history of the case which has been pending for more than twenty six (26) years.He stressed that private respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied with finality as early as April 5, 2000 which simply means that no further arguments or submissions from the parties would be allowed as the cases were now considered closed. He stated that since the Court has not yet set aside and/or recalled the resolution promulgated on April 5, 2000 as well as the resolution promulgated on July 10, 2000, private respondent could no longer validly or legally file other motions such as the one under consideration, one for suspension of the rules.
He contended that private respondent failed to present any single covenant that will tend to show any perfected contract of sale between the former and petitioners.
He rested by emphasizing that the orderly administration of justice requires that judgments and resolutions of a Court must reach a point of finality as set by law and rules. Any act which violates such principle must be stopped and any resolution which substantially modifies a decision after it has attained finality is utterly void.
Parties were notified in open court of the directive to file their respective MEMORANDA within ten (10) days from March 22, 2001.
The Court adjourned the hearing at 11:35 a.m.
On the pleading filed, the Court Resolved to NOTE the motion of petitioners to expunge (the so-called Supplemental Motion) praying to strike out and/or expunge the opposed supplemental motion from the records of the above-entitled cases."
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
