ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605. June 19, 2006]

SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, et al. v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Special First Division of this Court dated JUNE 19, 2006

G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605 (Severino M. Manotok IV, et al. v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque )

This Resolves petitioners' (a) Omnibus Motion (1) For Leave to File Reply to Respondents' Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration dated February 9, 2006; and (2) For Grant of a Period of Fifteen (15) Days to File Such Reply; (b) Second Motion for Additional Time to File Reply to respondents' Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration; (c) Motion (1) For Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration; (2) To Admit Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration; (3) To Refer the Second Motion for Reconsideration to the Honorable Court En Banc for Resolution; and (4) to Set the Second Motion for Reconsideration for Oral Argument; (d) Second Motion for Reconsideration; and respondents' (e) Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration.

The Second Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Sec. 2, Rule 52, in relation to Sec. 4, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. In addition, petitioners failed to cite any compelling reason why this Court should disregard the above Rules but merely reiterate the very same grounds relied upon in their first Motion for Reconsideration which were already thoroughly discussed and passed upon in our Decision dated December 12, 2005 and Resolution dated April 19, 2006.

ACCORDINGLY, petitioners' Omnibus Motion For Leave to File Reply to Respondents' Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration dated February 9, 2006; and For Grant of a Period of Fifteen (15) Days to File Such Reply; and Second Motion for Additional Time to File Reply to respondents' Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION considering that the Motion for Reconsideration has been denied in the Resolution dated April 19, 2006. The Motion For Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration; To Admit Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration; To Refer the Second Motion for Reconsideration to the Honorable Court En Banc for Resolution; and to Set the Second Motion for Reconsideration for Oral Argument is DENIED and the Second Motion for Reconsideration attached to the aforementioned Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION in view of the denial of the former. Respondents' Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration is NOTED.

No further pleadings will be entertained.

Let entry of judgment be issued.

CARPIO, J., maintains his dissent.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE