ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 169659. March 21, 2006]

BAYAN MUNA, et al. v. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, et al.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 21, 2006

G.R. No. 169659 (Bayan Muna, et al. v. Eduardo R. Ermita, et al.);

G.R. No. 169660 (Francisco I. Chavez v. Eduardo Ermita, et al.);

G.R. No. 169667 (Alternative Law Groups, Inc. [ALG] v. Eduardo R. Ermita, et al.);

G.R. No. 169777 (Senate of the Philippines , et al. v. Eduardo Ermita, et al.);

G.R. No. 169834 (PDP-Laban v. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita );

G.R. No. 171246 (Jose Anselmo I. strong> Cadiz , et al. v. Hon. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita )

x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

At the close of the Oral Arguments on these consolidated petitions held last February 21, 2006, this Court ordered all parties to submit their memoranda within fifteen (15) days.

On March 8, 2006, the last day for filing the required memoranda, petitioners Bayan Muna, Courage, and CODAL (petitioners), represented by the same counsel, filed an undated Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in which they asked for an extension of five (5) days within which to file their memorandum. Said Motion was grounded on the alleged heavy workload with which counsel was suddenly confronted when, after the issuance of Proclamation No. 1017, one of the party-list representatives belonging to petitioner Bayan Muna was arrested and five others, belonging to the same organization, were granted protective custody from warrantless arrest by the House of Representatives.

This Court, in view of the reasons proffered by counsel and the assurance he gave to this Court that the Motion was not intended for delay, granted the requested extension by Resolution dated March 14, 2006.

However, through a Manifestation dated 14 March 2006 filed on even date, the same petitioners, by the same counsel, informed this Court that it will no longer file a memorandum "in the interest of having the issues resolved soonest".

Implied in every motion for extension of time to file a pleading is a commitment by the moving party and its counsel that it can and will indeed file the pleading within the time requested. To ask for additional time from the Court, only to manifest later that the act for which the additional time was requested will no longer be done, is to trifle with the Court and to make light of the proceedings being conducted by it. The fault of petitioners and counsel is rendered all the more serious in view of the gravity of the issues involved in the present cases.

WHEREFORE, petitioners Bayan Muna, Courage and CODAL and their counsel, Atty. Neri Javier Colmenares, are REPRIMANDED. Their Manifestation dated 14 March 2006 is NOTED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE