ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 120961.May 29, 2002]

DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON, INC., etc. vs. CA, et al.

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 29 MAY 2002.

G.R. No. 120961 (Distilleria Washington, Inc., etc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

The original decision was promulgated on October 17, 1996 penned by Justice Jose Vitug as ponente, and concurred in by Justices Teodoro R. Padilla, Josue N. Bellosillo, Santiago M. Kapunan and Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr.Both parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration which were denied in a resolution of January 13, 1997. Upon a second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, the case was heard in oral argument on May 28, 1997 and the parties were required to submit simultaneous memoranda in support of their respective positions.

In an extended resolution dated October 2, 1997, the decision of October 17, 1996 was reconsidered and another one entered reversing in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals. The resolution was written by Justice Kapunan with Justices Bellosillo and Hermosisima concurring. Justice Vitug dissented while Justice Davide (now Chief Justice), who took the place of Justice Padilla as Chairman of the First Division, did not take part on the ground that he was not a member of the Division when the case was deliberated upon.

On October 28, 1997, private respondent filed a "Motion with Leave of Court to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation that the Matter be Resolved En Banc."

On January 22, 1998, petitioners filed a comment on the motion as required by the Court, to which private respondent submitted a reply.

Thereafter, Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago were designated as members of the Special First Division to resolve the case in place of Chief Justice who inhibited himself and Justice Hermosisima who had retired.

After due deliberations of the Court on February 19, 2001 on private respondent's motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Court promulgated on October 2,1997 and private respondent's motion to elevate the case En Banc, the Court resolved to DENY the same for lack of merit. The basic issues raised in the motion for reconsideration had already been fully and squarely passed upon in our resolution and no substantive arguments had been put forward to merit a reversal thereof.

Justices Bellosillo, Kapunan, Quisumbing and Ynares-Santiago voted to DENY the motion for reconsideration while Justice Vitug DISSENTED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE