ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 129382.� January 22, 2003]

SIASAT vs. CA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 22 2003.

G.R. No. 129382 (Victor Siasat and Jesus Ong vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Felicidad Y. Navarro-Quiambao, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, MTC, Br. 65, Makati City, Joel Feraren, in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff of the aforesaid Court, and Genie Development Corporation.)

In the Decision dated January 23, 2002, the Court denied the petition for review on certiorari of petitioners on essentially two grounds: first, for raising a factual issue, and second, for availing of a petition for relief from judgment to question a summary judgment rendered in an ejectment suit contrary to the proscription provided in the Rules of Summary Procedure. In the Resolution dated September 9, 2002, the motion for reconsideration of petitioners was denied with finality.

Petitioners now submit for consideration their motion for leave to file: (a) the attached manifestation that respondents admitted that the P1,500.00 interest in the dispositive portion of the decision of the Municipal Trial Court is but a daily penalty imposed until petitioners vacated the subject property; and (b) request for clarification on whether they could still present evidence on the merits of a case in a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, even after they failed to secure a writ of preliminary injunction. The aforesaid manifestation is NOTED . The request for clarification, however, is DENIED for lack of merit.� The Decision dated January 23, 2002 is clear and unambiguous. Although couched as a request for clarification, the Court is of the view that the motion of petitioners is but an attempt to secure a categorical pronouncement as to the implications of the denial of their petition on the legal remedies that they may wish to avail. A judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto (Cristobal vs. Melchor, 101 SCRA 857, 863-864 [1980]). While, as pointed out by petitioners, the Court has the authority to make doctrinal pronouncements, it is nonetheless not bound to explain the logical and necessary effects of its decisions.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE