Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 167101 : January 23, 2007] MANUEL A. ALEJANDRO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 23, 2007.

G.R. No. 167101 - (MANUEL A. ALEJANDRO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.)

This refers to the Opposition with Motions: 1) For Issuance of Entry of Judgment and 2) To Cite Petitioner's Counsel in Contempt of Court filed by private respondent Damian L. Co.

The said pleading was filed by private respondent Co after the following had transpired in respect of the present case:

On January 31, 2006, the Court rendered the Decision affirming the Resolution dated February 22, 2005 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc which, affirming the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division, directed the Election Officer of Alicia, Isabela, to reconvene the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) for the purpose of correcting the errors committed in the tallying of votes for the vice-mayoralty race in the said municipality, and to determine and proclaim the rightful winner therein.

Unsatisfied with the said decision, petitioner Manuel A. Alejandro filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof which the Court, in the Resolution dated September 12, 2006, denied with finality. In the said Resolution, the Court discussed at length the reasons for the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Undaunted, petitioner Alejandro, through his counsels Romulo B. Macalintal and Alberto C. Arga, filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration/Motion to Remand to COMELEC praying for the Court to: (1) reconsider its Decision dated January 31, 2006 and Resolution dated September 12, 2006; (2) issue a judgment reversing the assailed resolutions of the COMELEC en banc and Second Decision; and (3) to confirm the proclamation of petitioner Alejandro as the duly-elected vice-mayor of Alicia, Isabela. Attached thereto was the second Motion for Reconsideration/Motion to Remand to COMELEC.

Again, through Attys. Agra and Isidoro F. Molina, petitioner Alejandro filed an Omnibus Motion (to Nullify COMELEC Order, Maintain Status Quo and Give Due Course to the Second Motion for Reconsideration).

Acting thereon, in the Resolution dated October 10, 2006, the Court denied for lack of merit the Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration/Motion to Remand to COMELEC "considering that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule 52, Section 2 in relation to Rule 56, Section 2, 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended." The aforesaid Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration/Motion to Remand to COMELEC and the Omnibus Motion were noted without action. It was also stated therein that no further pleadings would be entertained.

For his part, private respondent Co filed an Opposition with Motions: 1) For Issuance of Entry of Judgment and 2) To Cite Petitioner's Counsel in Contempt of Court. He stressed that a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited pleading and that the motions filed by petitioner after his motion for reconsideration had been denied with finality constituted contempt of court. Further, Atty. Arga allegedly misrepresented to local officials in Alicia, Isabela, that the filing of the second motion for reconsideration prevented the implementation or execution of the assailed COMELEC resolutions.

On October 10, 2006, the Entry of Judgment was made in the present case.

Thereafter, on October 30, 2006, the Court received petitioner Alejandro's Manifestation (Withdrawal of Motion foe Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration, Second Motion for Reconsideration and Omnibus Motion) and Motion to Confirm Withdrawal.

In the Resolution dated November 21, 2006, the Court, inter alia, required Atty. Agra, counsel for petitioner Alejandro, to file his Comment on the motion to cite him in contempt of court. In compliance therewith, atty. Agra filed a Manifestation/Compliance (with Resolution dated 21 November 2006) alleging that all the pleadings that he filed with the Court showed respect therefore. In fact, he averred that he already withdrew his motion for leave to admit Second motion for reconsideration/motion to remand to COMELEC to pave the way for an unobstructed implementation of the assailed COMELEC resolutions.

Considering petitioner Alejandro's Manifestation (Withdrawal of Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration, Second Motion for Reconsideration and Omnibus Motion) and Motion to Confirm Withdrawal, there is no need for the Court to cite his counsel in contempt. In fact, he expressly stated that he filed the same in order that the implementation of the assailed COMELEC resolution may be implemented without obstruction.

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to:

1. DENY the motion to cite counsel of petitioner Alejandro in contempt of court;
   
   
2. NOTE the said counsel's Manifestation/Compliance.

Further, considering that the Decision dated January 31, 2006 in the present case has become final and executory on October 10, 2006, no further pleadings will be entertained.