ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 147323.November 28, 2001]

PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. vs. ORIENT COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentleman :

Quoted hereunder , for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 28 2001.

G.R. No. 147323 (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation vs. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation.)

This treats of the following: (a) Entry of Appearance of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel for petitioner; (b) Second Motion for Reconsideration (With Leave of Court) of the Resolution of 18 July 2001, filed by petitioner; (c) Manifestation (With Leave of Court) filed by counsel for petitioner to highlight and change certain words in the Second Motion for Reconsideration; (d) Motion to Admit Opposition to the Second Motion for Reconsideration, filed by respondent; (e) the aforesaid Opposition to Motion to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration; and (f) Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (With Prayer to Set the Case for Oral Argument) filed by petitioner.

After receiving an adverse ruling from the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed a Verified Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 20 March 2001. However, the Court on 18 April 2001 denied the motion due to petitioner's failure to submit a valid affidavit of service of a copy thereof on the respondent and the Court of Appeals. The affidavit of service attached thereto was declared invalid since it was subscribed and sworn to on 13 March 2001 while the actual date of service by registered mail was 21 March 2001. Obviously, the affidavit of service of the motion was subscribed and sworn to before actual service thereof was made.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution dated April 18, 2001) but it was denied in the Resolution of 18 July 2001 there being no compelling reason to warrant reconsideration. In the same Resolution, the Petition for Review on Certiorari was also denied for having been filed late.

Petitioner now files this Second Motion for Reconsideration (With Leave of Court) of the Resolution of 18 July 2001. Section 2, Rule 52, of the Rules of Court clearly provides that no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution shall be entertained. Hence, petitioner's second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and should not be considered.

With regard to the Entry of Appearance of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), under Sec. 26, Rule 138, and established jurisprudence, proper substitution of counsel requires: (a) a written application for substitution; (b) written consent of the client; (c) written consent of the attorney to be substituted; and, (d) in case such written consent cannot be secured, there must be filed with the application proof of service of notice of the application upon the attorney to be substituted. 1 Bernardo v. CA, G.R. No. 106153, 14 July 1997, 275 SCRA 413.

Thus, the OGCC should have procured the written consent of the representative of petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Company (PDIC) and its previous counsel on record Atty. Pablo Romero, Chief Legal Counsel. Without complying with these requisites the substituting counsel cannot be recognized by this Court.

ACCORDINGLY, before acting on the Entry of Appearance of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel as well as its request that all court processes be sent to it, the OGCC is required to comply with Sec. 26, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court. The Second Motion for Reconsideration (With Leave of Court) dated 11 September 2001 of the OGCC is DENIED for being a prohibited pleading under Sec. 2, Rule 52, in relation to Sec. 4, Rule 56, of the Rules of Court as amended. The Manifestation (With Leave of Court); Motion to Admit Opposition, Opposition to Motion to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration, and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (With Prayer to Set the Case for Oral Argument) are all NOTED WITHOUT ACTION in view of the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration (With Leave of Court).

No further pleadings will be entertained, and let entry of judgment be made in due course.

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