ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 168418.
DANTE C. VALENCIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JUNE E. CUA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 28, 2006
G.R. No. 168418 (Dante C. Valencia v. Commission on Elections and June E. Cua )
Before us is a Letter-Protest dated March 1, 2006 and a Motion For Leave To File Incorporated Third Motion For Reconsideration Or Clarification Of Denial Resolutions Of The Case At Bar, dated March 9, 2006. Both were filed by petitioner Dante C. Valencia.
The Letter-Protest bewails the
Court's alleged "horrendous treatment" of petitioner's petition for
certiorari and two subsequent letter-complaints dated
On the other hand, the Motion For Leave To File Incorporated Third Motion For Reconsideration Or Clarification Of Denial Resolutions Of The Case At Bar, seeks reconsideration of the following minute resolutions: 1) Resolution dated July 5, 2005, dismissing the petition for failure to sufficiently show that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the COMELEC en banc in rendering its challenged resolution; 2) Resolution dated October 4, 2005, denying for lack of merit the Motion for Reconsideration of the July 5, 2005 resolution; 3) Resolution dated January 24, 2006 denying for lack of merit the Motion for Leave to File Incorporated Second Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Denial Resolutions of the Case at Bar for being a prohibited pleading under Rule 52, Section 2 in relation to Rule 56 Section 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The aforestated
letter-protest and motion uniformly express petitioner's,
sentiment on the Court's disposition of his petition. Petitioner is alarmed why his petition for
certiorari, filed in the afternoon of
It may be recalled that in his petition for certiorari, petitioner assailed the en banc Resolution of the COMELEC affirming that of its second division which dismissed his petition for disqualification of private respondent as candidate for congressman on ground of lack of jurisdiction in view of the latter's proclamation as the winning candidate and eventual assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives. [1] cralaw
In our
To be sure, minute resolutions denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions are the result of a thorough deliberation among the Members of the Court although they are promulgated through the Clerk of Court. They need not be signed by the Members of the Court who took part in the deliberations thereon, nor do they require the Certification of the Chief Justice (unlike decisions and signed resolutions) in order to avoid undue delay in the disposition of cases. [2] cralaw Petitioner would prefer a resolution which spells out why and how the Court arrived at its conclusions. Suffice it to state that minute resolutions denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions affirm the assailed resolution/decision of the lower court or tribunal.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's Letter-Protest dated March 1, 2006 and Motion For Leave To File Incorporated Third Motion For Reconsideration Or Clarification Of Denial Resolutions Of The Case At Bar, dated March 9, 2006, are merely NOTED without action.
No further pleadings shall be entertained by the Court.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA.
LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Section 17, Article VI the Philippine Constitution, Aggabao v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163756, 449 SCRA 400 (2005).
[2] cralaw Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82273, 186 SCRA 1 (1990).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
