ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
BAR REVIEWER ON LABOR LAW 2014 (2nd) Edition - By Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library






[G.R. No. 148985. October 10, 2001]




Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 10 2001.

G.R. No. 148985(Ramon K. Ilusorio vs. Hon. Antonio C. Reyes and Baguio Country Club Corporation.)

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the resolution of August 13, 2001 denying petition for review.

First. Petitioner claims that there was undue haste in denying the petition because the petition was filed only on August 1; 2001 but the Court denied the same in its resolution of August 13, 2001. He contends that the Court should have first required respondent corporation to comment on the petition and then require him to file a reply instead of resolving the petition on its own initiative. In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, dated September 5, 2001, petitioner's mother, Erlinda K. Ilusorio, reiterated the foregoing, adding that the issuance of the resolution in question is "unprecedented in the annals of the Supreme Court's decision-making process."

The contention has no merit. A review under Rule 45 is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45, 6). Consequently, the Court may, without requiring comment by respondent, deny the petition if it is without merit or is prosecuted manifestly for delay or if the questions raised therein are unsubstantiated (Rule 45, 5). In the exercise of this discretion, this Court denied the petition on the basis of the evaluation of the merits of this case through the resolution of August 13, 2001. Needless to say, the Court is not bound to act on a petition only after a lapse of a certain period of time or after requiring respondent to comment. Contrary to Mrs. Ilusorio's claim, this Court, whether acting en banc or through any of its Divisions, has been regularly denying or dismissing petitions found to be without merit.

Second. Petitioner attached to his motion an affidavit executed by the former Accounts Receivable Manager of respondent corporation, Elizabeth Narciza, attesting to the fact that certain charges allegedly incurred by the then Vice President for administration of respondent corporation, Atty. Federico Agcaoili, were credited sometime in December 1999 against the respondent corporation's representation expenses; and that these expenses pertain to charges incurred by guests of Atty. Agcaoili, among whom was a certain "Judge Anthony de los Reyes" who is allegedly Judge Antonio C. Reyes of RTC, Branch 61, Baguio City, to whom this case was assigned. For this reason, petitioner requests that "a closer look" begiven to the orders of Judge Reyes denying his motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as such orders are allegedly "biased" and without any legal or factual basis.

This contention is likewise without merit. The Court of Appeals foundJudge Reyes' orders to be in accord with the facts and the law of the case. Futhermore, the connection which petitioner seeks to establish from the reverse crediting of the account of Atty. Agcaoili to the representation expenses of respondent corporation on one hand and the rulings issued by the Judge Reyes on the other hand is tenuous, not to mention that the conclusion he seeks to draw therefrom is without any basis.

Third. On the merits of the case, petitioner insists that paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Deed of Assignment, which limit the use of the penthouse unit assigned to petitioner only to himself and the members of his immediate family, have been superseded by the Maintenance Agreements entered into by him and respondent corporation beginning 1995, which refer to the use of the penthouse unit by "guests and users."

As stated in the resolution in question, the aforesaid agreements, which were renewed annually, had for their main purpose the maintenance of the upkeep of the unit which respondent corporation, for a fee, undertook to provide. This is clear from the "whereas" clauses of the said agreements which read:

WHEREAS, [petitioner] is the assignee of Penthouse Unit PH-1 with complete furniture, fixture and equipment and forming part of the building complex of the Club at Scout Drive, Baguio City;

WHEREAS, the parties recognize the right of the CLUB to preserve exclusiveness of catering its services and facilities to its members including the maintenance of a high standard of housekeeping of the Penthouse units of its members within the aforesaid building complex of the CLUB;

WHEREAS, [petitioner] has designated the CLUB and the latter has accepted to maintain the penthouse unit of the former and will provide experienced and reliable personnel to maintain [the] upkeep security of the penthouse unit under the terms and conditions herein set forth[.] (Rollo, p. 150)

(Emphasis added)

Clearly, the aforesaid agreements are only ancillary to the Deed of Assignment and cannot override its terms and conditions.

But assuming that the aforesaid agreements served to do away with the limitations in the Deed, petitioner is precluded from invoking such at this late stage considering that as of date there is no longer any existing maintenance agreement between petitioner and respondent corporation as the latter, on May 15, 2000, exercised its option not to renew the last maintenance agreement which expired on May 31, 2000. Clearly, petitioner cannot, in support of this petition, rely on an agreement which is no longer in force.

The other matters raised by petitioner have already been passed upon in the resolution of August 13, 2001 and thus need not be discussed in this resolution again.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.

Very truly yours,


Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main








  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™