ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146406.September 5, 2001]

EDGARDO CABRERA vs. ALVIN P. JACOB

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 5 2001.

G.R. No. 146406(Edgardo Cabrera vs. Alvin P. Jacob.)

Petitioner, through counsel, submitted a "Motion for Enlightenment" on 09 August 2001 asking the Court why the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Branch 3, sustained by the Court of Appeals, was affirmed in every respect. Reiterating his contention that he spent his own money for the mining claims subject of the instant suit, petitioner would persist in disputing the finding of both the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court that a partnership existed between him and respondent.

A letter from petitioner himself, addressed to the Chief Justice, was attached to his motion begging for an explanation why the Court denied with finality his motion for reconsideration.

The latest pleading of petitioner, although denominated as a "Motion for Enlightenment," is in essence a second motion for reconsideration of our resolution denying the petition. It must be stressed that both the trial court and the appellate court have ruled, based on their factual findings, that a partnership has existed between petitioner and respondent. This Court is concluded by such a finding, one which the Court is not at liberty to review and assess all over again. The denial of a petition by minute resolution does not in any way convey that the case has not been deliberated upon by the Court. On the contrary, when a petition is denied for lack of merit or on the ground that no reversible error has been committed, it simply means that the findings made by the court below are being adopted by the tribunal. A minute resolution dismissing a petition constitutes, for all intents and purposes, an adjudication of the controversy and subject matter of the petition. With its heavy caseload, it is just impossible for the Court to write extended opinions or full length decisions on each and every case that reaches it.

ACCORDINGLY, the second motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE