ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140964. February 16, 2004]

INSULAR vs. YOUNG

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of Third Division of this Court dated FEB 16 2004.

G.R. No. 140964 (Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd., Insular Savings Bank and Jacinto D. Jimenez, petitioners, vs. Robert Young, Gabriel La'o II, Arthur Tan, Lope Juban, Jr., Maria Lourdes Ongpin, Elsie Dizon, Yolanda Bayer, Manuel Viray and Jose Vito Borromeo, respondents.)

G.R. No. 142267 (Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd., Insular Bank and Jacinto D. Jimenez, petitioners, vs. Robert Young, Gabriel La'o II, Arthur Tan, Lope Juban, Jr., Maria Lourdes Ongpin, Antonio Ongpin, Elsie Dizon, Yolanda Bayer, Cecilia Viray, Manuel Viray and Jose Vito Borromeo And Deputy Sheriff Ruben Nequito, respondents.)

Before us are respondents': (1) Motion for Suspension of the Rules and for Leave to File the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration; (2) Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated January 16, 2002; and (3) Urgent Motion to Refer This Case to the En Banc.

We will resolve the present motions only insofar as respondent Robert Young is concerned. It must be emphasized that all the other respondents have been declared in default. Records show that they did not file a motion to lift the order of default. Hence, they have no personality to join Young in seeking reconsideration of this Court's Decision. It is too late in the day for them to plead their defenses, after choosing to ignore the opportunity to be heard.

Movant contends that there were material facts disregarded by this Court in arriving at theassailed Decision, which if considered, would have substantially altered the outcome of this case. Once again, he argues that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed by the parties is a contract of sale, not a contract to sell, and that the public auction sale of the shares is null and void since the Deed of Pledge was novated by the MOA.

The issues presented are mere reiteration of those previously raised and extensively passed upon in our January 16, 2002 Decision.

Finally, movant did not interpose any strong and compelling reason why we should refer this case to the Court En Banc.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant motions are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE