Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > February 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. Nos. 157745 & 157955 : February 12, 2007] GENALYN D. YOUNG VS. SPOUSES MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 12 FEBRUARY 2007:

G.R. Nos. 157745 & 157955 - (Genalyn D. Young v. Spouses Manuel Sy and Victoria Sy)


In a Decision dated September 26, 2006, the Court granted the Petition (re: Supplemental Complaint) docketed as G.R. No. 157955 filed by Genalyn D. Young and directed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Pablo City, Branch 32, to admit her Supplemental Complaint dated July 20, 2000. In the same Decision, the Court denied the Petition (re: Non-Suit) docketed as G.R. No. 157745 likewise filed by Genalyn D. Young on the ground of forum shopping.

Submitted now for resolution is respondents' Manifestation with Motion to Clarify Decision alleging that the Decision promulgated by this Court appears to be self-contradictory, such that when the Court ordered the admission of the Supplemental Complaint of the petitioner, this, in effect, restored and revived the main Complaint.

There is no contradiction in the Decision of the Court. Respondents must bear in mind that the RTC's Order denying the admission of the Supplemental Pleading of petitioner was first assailed before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the meantime, the RTC proceeded with the trial and in the course thereof, the RTC ordered the dismissal of the case on the ground of non-suit for failure of petitioner to appear for trial. This order was assailed by petitioners before the CA via ordinary appeal and a petition for certiorari. The latter was dismissed by the CA principally on the ground that the remedy of appeal was available. Subsequently however, the CA rendered its decision in the appeal taken by the petitioner, this time, reversing and setting aside the RTC Order which dismissed the case for non-suit, and, remanding the case to the RTC for further proceedings.

The CA Decision affirming the RTC non-admission of the Supplemental Complaint and the CA Decision dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the remedy of appeal is available to petitioner were separately brought up to this Court by way of herein above-entitled Petitions for Review. The herein Decision merely resolved that the Supplemental Complaint should be admitted; and the CA did not commit any error in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it on the ground that there is an appeal available.

The CA Decision in the ordinary appeal which reversed the RTC Order dismissing the case on the ground of non-suit and ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings is assailed in the Petition for Review, entitled Spouses Manuel Sy and Victoria Sy v. Genalyn D. Young, G.R. No. 169214. This case is still under review by this Court in another Division. It is the outcome of this case that shall finally determine whether the main Complaint shall be "restored" or "revived" as the respondents so put it. If the Court affirms the CA Decision, then the case is remanded to the RTC for further proceedings, taking into account the Supplemental Complaint as ordered by the Court in its Decision dated September 26, 2006. If the Court reverses the CA Decision, then the complaint is deemed dismissed together with the Supplemental Complaint.

The other matters raised in the Manifestation With Motion to Clarify Decision, in effect, move for the reconsideration of the Decision of the Court. These other matters reiterate basically the same arguments raised in respondents' pleadings which had been laid to rest by the Decision dated September 26, 2006 and the Court finds no cogent reason that warrants a reconsideration thereof.

WHEREFORE, the Manifestation with Motion to Clarify Decision which is treated as a Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.