ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 124554.February 18, 2002]
ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORP. vs. CA, et al.
SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 18 FEB 2002.
G.R. No. 124554(Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of Appealsand North Philippine Union Mission of the Seventh Day Adventist.)
The Court sees no reason of significant and compelling import that can warrant the modification, nay reversal, of this Court's decision, rendered 09 December 1997, which upheld the assailed judgment of the appellate court below.
The Court, in its resolution of 05 July 1999, denied with finality petitioners motion for reconsideration. The subsequent inhibition, however, of the ponente due to the appearance of a grandniece, a member of the Quasha Ancheta Pe�a and Nolasco Law Offices which acted as counsel for private respondent, in a hearing prior to the resolution of the motion for reconsideration rightly constrains the Court, if only to eradicate any semblance of bias that might be ascribed to it, to vacate its 05th July 1999 resolution and review anew petitioners plea for reconsideration.
The matters averred and invoked by petitioner dwell on certain focal issues of the controversy which, basically, had been earlier passed upon in the decision of the Court being sought to be reexamined.
In its motion for reconsideration, petitioner demurs from the correctness of the commissioners report stating that the Commissioner relied on unauthenticated and unsigned "machine copies" of several documents. Petitioner asseverates that the Commissioner erred in including the Bi�an and Baesa expansion property owned by it but not covered by the Land Development Agreement of the parties. Petitioner likewise faults 'the Commissioner for refusing to deduct from its liability the value of 5,000 memorial lots for which private respondent, petitioner claims, has already been paid.
The inclusion of the Bi�an and Baesa expansion property, as well as the value of the 5,000 memorial lots, is not here being taken up for the first time. Petitioner had raised its points at the appellate court and before this Court in its petition for certiorari. The Commissioner, in her report, elucidated on the exegesis of including the disputed items in the determination of petitioners liability, thus -
"Item No. 3 - The cost of sale of the 5,000 lots initially sold to Premium Express Financing Corporation was remitted to the NPUM as downpayment for the cost of the entire lot in question by the Eternal Gardens Memorial Corporation and therefore it could not be taken up as a regular sale of memorial lots and there was no corresponding Perpetual Care Agreement in the Deed of Sale. The alleged sale of the lots in Bi�an and Baesa branch should not likewise be deducted since the Eternal Gardens could not show proof of the sale when the undersigned requested them to submit evidences of the sale of said lots and that such sale were included in the declared financial statements."
It is established that petitioner acceded to the following stipulation in the Agreement, to wit:
"(e) THAT the SECOND PARTY shall keep proper books and accounting records of all transactions affecting the sale of said memorial lots, which records shall be open for inspection by the FIRST PARTY at any time during usual office hours. The SECOND PARTY shall also render to the FIRST PARTY a monthly accounting report of all sales and cash collections effected the preceding month. It is also understood that all financial statements shall be subject to annual audit by a reputable external accounting firm Which shall be acceptable to that FIRST PARTY."
Petitioner, however, failed to submit to the appellate court the necessary documents in order to ascertain its exact liability. To allow petitioner to challenge the matter anew, when it ignored the subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum addressed initially to its President, Mr. Gabriel O. Vida, and later to its Chief of Records Division, would be to put a premium on a clear disregard of court processes. Unbelievably, the final resolution of the case has been delayed for so long and so it is time that the controversy draws to a close.
WHEREFORE, by a vote of three Justices, namely, Chief Justice Davide, Jr., Justice Vitug, and Justice Carpio, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality. Justice Bellosillo, joined by Justice Melo, submitted a dissenting opinion.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
