[G.R. No. 148985. October 10, 2001]
ILUSORIO vs. HON. REYES et al.
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 10 2001.
G.R. No. 148985(Ramon
K. Ilusorio vs. Hon. Antonio C. Reyes
and Baguio Country Club Corporation.)
reconsideration of the resolution of August 13, 2001 denying petition for
First. Petitioner claims that there was undue haste in denying the
petition because the petition was filed only on August 1; 2001 but the Court
denied the same in its resolution of August 13, 2001. He contends that the
Court should have first required respondent corporation to comment on the
petition and then require him to file a reply instead of resolving the petition
on its own initiative. In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, dated
September 5, 2001, petitioner's mother, Erlinda K. Ilusorio, reiterated the
foregoing, adding that the issuance of the resolution in question is "unprecedented
in the annals of the Supreme Court's decision-making process."
The contention has no
merit. A review under Rule 45 is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial
discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important
reasons therefor (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45, §6). Consequently,
the Court may, without requiring comment by respondent, deny the petition if it
is without merit or is prosecuted manifestly for delay or if the questions
raised therein are unsubstantiated (Rule 45, §5). In the exercise of this
discretion, this Court denied the petition on the basis of the evaluation of
the merits of this case through the resolution of August 13, 2001. Needless to
say, the Court is not bound to act on a petition only after a lapse of a
certain period of time or after requiring respondent to comment. Contrary to
Mrs. Ilusorio's claim, this Court, whether acting en banc or through any of its
Divisions, has been regularly denying or dismissing petitions found to be
Second. Petitioner attached to his motion an affidavit executed by
the former Accounts Receivable Manager of respondent corporation, Elizabeth
Narciza, attesting to the fact that certain charges allegedly incurred by the
then Vice President for administration of respondent corporation, Atty.
Federico Agcaoili, were credited sometime in December 1999 against the
respondent corporation's representation expenses; and that these expenses
pertain to charges incurred by guests of Atty. Agcaoili, among whom was a certain
"Judge Anthony de los Reyes" who is allegedly Judge Antonio C. Reyes of RTC,
Branch 61, Baguio City, to whom this case was assigned. For this reason,
petitioner requests that "a closer look" begiven to the orders of Judge Reyes
denying his motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as such
orders are allegedly "biased" and without any legal or factual basis.
This contention is
likewise without merit. The Court of Appeals foundJudge Reyes' orders to be in accord with the facts and the law of
the case. Futhermore, the connection which petitioner seeks to establish from
the reverse crediting of the account of Atty. Agcaoili to the representation
expenses of respondent corporation on one hand and the rulings issued by the
Judge Reyes on the other hand is tenuous, not to mention that the conclusion he
seeks to draw therefrom is without any basis.
Third. On the merits of the case, petitioner insists that
paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Deed of Assignment, which limit the use of the
penthouse unit assigned to petitioner only to himself and the members of his
immediate family, have been superseded by the Maintenance Agreements entered
into by him and respondent corporation beginning 1995, which refer to the use
of the penthouse unit by "guests and users."
As stated in the
resolution in question, the aforesaid agreements, which were renewed annually,
had for their main purpose the maintenance of the upkeep of the unit which
respondent corporation, for a fee, undertook to provide. This is clear from the
"whereas" clauses of the said agreements which read:
WHEREAS, [petitioner] is
the assignee of Penthouse Unit PH-1 with complete furniture, fixture and
equipment and forming part of the building complex of the Club at Scout Drive,
WHEREAS, the parties
recognize the right of the CLUB to preserve exclusiveness of catering its
services and facilities to its members including the maintenance of a high
standard of housekeeping of the Penthouse units of its members within the
aforesaid building complex of the CLUB;
has designated the CLUB and the latter has accepted to maintain the penthouse
unit of the former and will provide experienced and reliable personnel to maintain
[the] upkeep security of the penthouse unit under the terms and conditions
herein set forth[.] (Rollo, p. 150)
Clearly, the aforesaid
agreements are only ancillary to the Deed of Assignment and cannot override its
terms and conditions.
But assuming that the
aforesaid agreements served to do away with the limitations in the Deed,
petitioner is precluded from invoking such at this late stage considering that
as of date there is no longer any existing maintenance agreement between petitioner
and respondent corporation as the latter, on May 15, 2000, exercised its option
not to renew the last maintenance agreement which expired on May 31, 2000.
Clearly, petitioner cannot, in support of this petition, rely on an agreement
which is no longer in force.
The other matters raised
by petitioner have already been passed upon in the resolution of August 13,
2001 and thus need not be discussed in this resolution again.
the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court