ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder , for your information , is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 14 2005 .

G.R. No. 167258 ( Teodoro Emboy , for himself as President of Butuan Puericulture Center No. 394 , Inc. , et al. vs. Court of Appeals , et. al .)

This is a petition assailing the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated February 7, 2005 which dismissed the petition for certiorari before it on technical grounds; i.e., no motion for reconsideration was filed in the RTC; copy of the assailed Resolution lacks the page bearing the date of promulgation; respondents Yebes and Boaquino were not served with copies of the petition; Counsel's IBP O.R. is dated December 29, 2005 , casting doubt to its authenticity.

In the Resolution dated April 6, 2005 , the Motion for Extension of Time to file the Petition was denied for petitioners' failure to furnish the Court of Appeals a copy of said motion. Consequently, the petition for review filed on April 28, 2005 was denied for late filing and for lack of proper verification.

A Motion for Reconsideration on the denial of the Motion for Extension was filed stating therein that the petitioner had already furnished the CA with the copy of said motion. Considering that subsequent compliance does not cure the defect, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court finding no compelling reason to warrant consideration thereof.

On August 8, 2005 , the petitioner also moved for the reconsideration of the denial of his petition for review invoking the merits of the case. This was, likewise, denied in the Resolution dated September 12, 2005 .

On September 26, 2005 , the petitioner filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of the Motion for Extension. At the same time, the petitioner wrote a Letter to the Chief Justice dated September 29, 2005 asking the Court En Banc to resolve its Second Motion for Reconsideration.

Even if the Court overlooks the technical defects of the Motion for Extension or the Petition itself, the petition has no merit. A perusal of the petition with its annexes will show that it is one to enjoin the elections of the members of the Board of Directors of the Butuan Puericulture Center which the Regional Trial Court, Butuan City , Branch 33 ordered to be conducted. The RTC even ordered the COMELEC City Officer to supervise the elections. However, in assailing the decision of the RTC, the petitioner has been committing procedural lapses in the court a quo , in the CA and in this Court which can not be countenanced. It must also be stressed that the Court En Banc is not an appellate court. A decision or resolution of the Division is a decision or resolution of the Supreme Court.

Acting on the Second Motion for Reconsideration dated September 15, 2005 , the Court DENIES the same for lack of merit. The Letter dated September 29, 2005 addressed to the Chief Justice is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE