ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 153285.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 153285 (People of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Hon. Pablo M. Paqueo and Salvacion Apolinar, respondents.)
Before this Court is an Omnibus Motion to Recall Entry of
Judgment and to Declare Null and Void the Resolution of
The rollo of this case shows the chronology of pertinent incidents, including pleadings filed by petitioners before us:
On
On
Subsequently, counsel Tolentino alleged that he filed a Motion
for Leave to File and Admit a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus,
[4]
cralaw
attaching thereto said petition.
[5]
cralaw
Allegedly they were posted on
As indicated at p. 9 of the Rollo, the date of receipt by this
Court of the original of the present petition for certiorari and mandamus was
only on
Finally, it must be noted further that only counsel Tolentino signed the Verification and the Certification against forum-shopping (Rollo, pp. 37-38), leaving out co-petitioners, namely Marites de la Torre (SSS) and Regional Prosecutor Santiago Turingan.
Thus, we denied the motion for leave and dismissed the petition
filed by counsel Tolentino, et al. in our Resolution dated
Patently, petitioner's counsel had actually misled the Court in its motion for extension. In this motion, the counsel categorically stated that petitioner would file a petition for review on certiorari, [7] cralaw but instead filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus. In this case, having denied the motion for extension for failure to state a material date, specifically, the failure to state the date of filing the motion for reconsideration of the assailed order of the Regional Trial Court, that denial of the motion for extension on the aforementioned ground, carries over to all subsequent pleadings and motions.
Since petitioner in his motion for extension, misled the court to rely and act on his motion for extension under Rule 45 within a reglementary period of 15 days, leaving petitioner to file a petition for review on certiorari only till May 4, 2002, and since we denied this motion, any pleading filed thereafter would have been filed out of time. Petitioner cannot thenceforth turn to Rule 65 and capriciously file a petition for certiorari and mandamus under a different rule. To allow him to change rules in this case, would be tantamount to allowing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as a substitute for a lost appeal. In any event, the petition for certiorari and mandamus was, as already stated, also fatally defective.
In our resolution dated November 11, 2002, [8] cralaw acting on petitioners' motion for reconsideration filed by signatory counsel Romulo S.J. Tolentino but allegedly through "counsel by State Prosecutor and Special State Prosecutor for SSS cases in Region V and SSS counsel Atty. Marites de la Torre," we denied with finality said motion inasmuch as there was no compelling reason to warrant the reconsideration sought. We also instructed that no further pleadings and motions be entertained.
Despite the finality of our order, petitioners, banking on the
patience of this Court, filed another motion for reconsideration
[9]
cralaw
of our resolution dated
Taxing further the patience of this Court, petitioners through
counsel Romulo S.J. Tolentino filed what he entitled a "Motion for Second
Reading of Motion for Reconsideration dated
On September 1, 2003, petitioners filed through counsel Tolentino
what he called a "Comment for Elucidation in Furtherance of Judicious Discourse
and Determination on the Uncontested Admitted Truth by Silence that the Minute
Resolution with Entry of Final Judgment in Due Course Has No Basis in Truth,
therefore Infirm and Void, Constitutionally Impermissible, Constitutive of
Miscarriage of Justice."
[15]
cralaw
Again said comment for elucidation was only noted without action in our resolution
dated
On
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Asst. Div. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw See Rollo, p. 2.
[2] cralaw Ibid.
[3] cralaw Id. at 6.
[4] cralaw Id. at 9-12.
[5] cralaw Id. at 13-38.
[6] cralaw Id . at 64.
[7] cralaw Supra. note 1.
[8] cralaw Id. at 76.
[9] cralaw Id . at 78-81.
[10] cralaw Id . at 85-87.
[11] cralaw Id . at 89.
[12] cralaw Id . at 91-94.
[13] cralaw Id. at 97.
[14] cralaw Id. at 99.
[15] cralaw Id . at 104-127.
[16] cralaw Id . at 155.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
