ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 103882. October 17, 2000]
REP. OF THE PHILS. vs. CA, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 17 2000.
G.R. No 103882 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, Cultural Center of the Philippines.) and
G.R. No 105276 (Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation, vs. Court of Appeals.)
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution Expunging from the Records the Motion for Execution) interposed by the petitioners, Republic Real Estate Corporation and Pasay City, through counsel.
On November 25, 1998, this Court decided the two consolidated cases, G.R. No. 103882 and G.R. No. 105276, disposing as follows:
"WHEREFORE:
In G.R. No. 103882, the Petition is GRANTED; the Decision, dated January 28, 1992, and Amended Decision, dated April 28, 1992, of the Court of Appeals, are both SET ASIDE; and Pasay City Ordinance No. 121, dated May 6, 1958, and Ordinance No. 158, dated April 21, 1959, as well as the Reclamation Agreements entered into by Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) as authorized by said city ordinances, are declared NULL and VOID for being ultra vires, and contrary to Rep Act 1899.
The writ of preliminary injunction issued on April 26, 1962 by the trial court a quo in Civil Case No. 2229-P is made permanent, and the notice of lis pendens issued by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 51349 ordered CANCELLED. The Register of Deeds of Pasay City is directed to take note of and annotate on the certificates of title involved, the cancellation of subject notice of lis pendens.
The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, is hereby ordered to pay Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation the sum of TEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVENTY-ONE AND TWENTY-NINE CENTAVOS (P10,926,071.29) PESOS, plus interest thereon of six (6%) percent per annum from May 1, 1962 until full payment, which amount shall be divided by Pasay City and RREC, share and share alike.
In G.R. No. 105276, the Petition is here DENIED for lack of merit.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED."
The said judgment has long become final and executory. As a matter of fact, on February 15, 2000 the Court denied with finality petitioners' Petition to Declare a Mistrial (With Prayer to Set the Case for Oral Argument), which was treated and acted upon as a mere incident to the two consolidated cases, succinctly ruling:
"This resolution is final, and it is understood that no further pleadings shall be allowed. xxx"
The aforesaid Resolution notwithstanding, petitioners presented a Motion for Clarification of the Decision to Conform with the Law and Contract, dated March -10, 2000, and a Motion for Execution, dated June 6, 2000.
On June 20, 2000, the Court resolved the Motion for Clarification of the Decision to conform with the law and contract, thus:
"The Court Resolved to EXPUNGE from the records the motion (for Clarification of Decision to Conform with the Law and Contract) dated 10 March 2000 filed by Atty. Romeo G. Roxas of R.G. Roxas & Associates, counsel for petitioners Real Estate Corp. and Pasay City, considering that in the resolution of 15 February 2000, the Court among others ordered that no further pleadings shall be allowed."
On July 11, 2000, the Court disposed the motion for execution as follows:
"The Court resolved to EXPUNGE from the records the Motion for Execution dated 6 June 2000 filed by counsel for petitioners Real Estate Corp. and Pasay City, considering that in the resolution of 15 February 2000, the Court already ordered that no further pleading shall be allowed in this case."
But still, counsel for petitioners persisted in his contumacious scheme by filing the present Motion for Reconsideration (of the Resolution Expunging from the Records the Motion for Execution).
It is well settled to the point of being elementary, that the Supreme Court is not the proper forum for seeking execution of a final and executory judgment. Movant is hereby ordered, under pain of contempt, to follow the pertinent provision of Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration under consideration is hereby DENIED, with definite finality. Petitioners are warned not to file further pleadings.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
