ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 103882.February 15, 2000]

REP. OF THE PHILS. vs. CA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court dated FEB 15 2000.

G.R No 103882(Republic of the Philippines, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Republic Real Estate Corporation, respondents, Cultural Center of the Philippines, intervenor.)

G.R No 105276(Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Republic of the Philippines, respondents.)

Docketed as G R No 139463, the petition seeks to declare a mistrial in G. R. No 103882, entitled "Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner versus The Honorable Court of Appeals and Republic Real Estate Corporation, Respondents, and Cultural Center of the Philippines, Intervenor," and in G R No 105276, entitled, "Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation, Petitioners versus Court of Appeals and Republic of the Philippines, et al, Respondents," ¹ which consolidated cases were decided by this Court on November 25, 1998.contending, that:

A.THE SUPREME COURT COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COMMISSIONED TRIAL COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, THAT RREC INDUBITABLY RECLAIMED FIFTY-FIVE (55) HECTARES AT MANILA BAY, AND INSTEAD, SUBSTITUTED, REPLACED AND IMPLANTED ITS OWN FINDING THAT RREC DID NOT RECLAIM ANY AREA IN MANILA BAY;

B.THE SUPREME COURT AWARDED TODAY, TO RREC AND PASAY CITY, AS QUANTUM MERUIT COMPENSATION, THE DIMINISHED AMOUNT OF P10,926,071.29 AT ITS 1962 PRICE LEVELS AND GAVE THE RECLAIMED LAND TO CCP, WHICH LAND HAS DRAMATICALLY INCREASED IN VALUE THROUGH TIME;

C.THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT ALLOW RREC AND PASAY CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO ORALLY ARGUE ON THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE RULING ON SAID MOTION DESPITE THE NEED AND URGENCY OF ORALLY PRESENTING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT THE EGREGIOUS MISTAKES OF THE HIGH COURT AS MANIFESTED IN ITS DECISION;

D. THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO FIRST RESOLVE RREC AND PASAY CITY'S PENDING "MOTION (TO INHIBIT)" BEFORE ISSUING ITS DENIAL OF RREC AND PASAY CITY'S "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION";

E.THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT EVEN REQUIRE THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE CCP TO COMMENT OR RESPOND TO RREC AND PASAY CITY'S 'MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION', OR AWAIT A RESPONSE THEREON FROM THEM, BEFORE ISSUING A DENIAL OF THE SAME.

On September 14, 1999, the Court resolved to treat the present petition as a mere incident in the above-noted cases.

The issues touched upon in the first two grounds aforestated i.e., the reclamation by RREC of 55 hectares of land and the amount of compensation awarded to it, were deliberated upon and resolved in the aforesaid Decision of November 25, 1998 in G.R. Nos. 103882 and 105276.Any exception or objection thereto, which was available, should have been raised by petitioners in their Motion for Reconsideration of the said Decision.Basic is the rule that a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment or proceeding should include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived (1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 15, Section 8).Consequently, petitioners can not now be heard this late to complain, after having had the opportunity to advance their arguments in not just one but two motions for reconsideration, the first on December 7, 1998, and the second on April 8, 1999, both of which motions for reconsideration were denied by the Court with finality.

The other three grounds invoked by petitioners are matters within the exclusive discretion and prerogative of this Court to resolve.Motions for hearings or oral arguments as well as the inhibition of members of the Court cannot be granted to party-litigants, as a matter of right.They must be based on cogent and valid reasons.Allowance of such motions is entirely addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and its rulings thereon are not to be disturbed in the absence of grave error.When the Court denied the motions for reconsideration, it did so after a thorough study of the issues deliberated upon.

There is a mistrial where there are serious irregularities in the proceedings resulting in a miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional right of the parties to due process of law.In subject cases, the Court discerns neither procedural error nor violation of petitioners' right to due process.Petitioners were afforded more than enough opportunity to ventilate all their contentions, submissions and arguments in all the proceedings, starting from the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Pasay City and all the way to this Court.

Indeed, the decision of this Court in G.R. Nos. 103882 and 105276 must be accorded finality and respect; otherwise stability of judicial decisions is imperiled.

WHEREFORE , for utter want of merit, the PETITION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL (WITH PRAYER TO SET CASE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT) is hereby DENIED with finality.

This Resolution is final, and it is understood that no further pleadings shall be allowed.Under pain of contempt, petitioners and the other parties are hereby enjoined from filing any other petition or pleading in these cases.Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes took no part.Buena, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE