ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ UDK 12232. August 30, 1999]

THEODORE JENG vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated AUG 30, 1999.

UDK 12232 (Theodore Jeng vs Court of Appeals, et al.)

As early as November 4, 1996, petitioner Theodore Jeng filed a petition for review questioning the Court of Appeals decision which was adverse to him.

On December 4, 1996, the Court in a resolution denied the petition for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the respondent court had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned decision1 [Rollo, p. 21.]

Subsequent to this, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied with finality on April 28, 1997.2 [Id., at 27.] A second motion for reconsideration was filed and was consequently denied after the court found no cogent reason to grant the same. Entry of Judgment was ordered in this case.3 [Id., at 46.]

A third motion for reconsideration was again filed which was NOTED without ACTION considering that entry of judgment has already been effected on August 7, 1997. The Court further stated that "no further pleadings shall be entertained herein."4 [Id., at 47.]

Again , petitioners filed a fourth motion for reconsideration on October 22, 1997. The Court's action in the Resolution dated November 19, 1997, NOTED WITHOUT ACTION and no further pleadings shall be filed.

Seemingly undaunted by the exhortation no further pleadings shall be filed, petitioner wrote a letter of appeal to the Chief Justice on May 20, 1999 which was endorsed to the Division Clerk of Court, Atty. Virginia Ancheta-Soriano,5 [Id., at 55.] The Court's action: NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

Prayer was reiterated in a letter to Atty. Soriano6 [Id., at 66.] but the same was Noted without Action.

On August 9, 1999, petitioner again filed a Motion to Resolved the petition because he could not accept the previous action of Noted without Action.

It must be stressed to the petitioner that there must be an end to every litigation. Much as the Court would like to commiserate with petitioner's plight, he has to accept the harsh reality that he had lost his cause in court.

As early as August 7, 1997, we have exhorted the petitioner not to file any further pleadings for the they will not be entertained in view of an entry of judgment which has already been made in this case. Evidently, the directive against the filing of any further pleadings, motions or papers is one that exacts observance by all parties concerned, such that willful and unjustifiable disregard or disobedience thereof constitutes contempt under Section 3(b), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.7 [Ortigas and Company Limited partnership v. Velasco, 254 SCRA 234 (1996).]

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to NOTE without ACTION the Motion to Resolve. No further pleadings shall be filed lest petitioner and his counsel shall be held in contempt of court.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE