ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 149992.� August 10, 2005]
HI-TONE MARKETING vs. BAIKAL REALTY
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 10 2005.
G.R. No. 149992 (Hi-Tone Marketing Corporation vs. Baikal Realty Corporation and Alejandro R. Villanueva, in his capacity as Register of Deeds of Cavite.)
Submitted for resolution is private respondent Baikal Realty Corporation's (Baikal) Motion for Clarification of Decision Dated 20 August 2004 and Resolution Dated 2 March 2005 Due To Compelling Reason and in the Higher Interest of Justice, [1] cralaw praying for the Court:
a.�� to CLARIFY the Decision dated 20 August 2004 and the Resolution dated 2 March 2005; and / or
b.�� to RECALL / SET ASIDE the aforementioned Decision and Resolution; and
c.�� to DECLARE the Petition MOOT and ACADEMIC and forthwith DISMISS the same. [2] cralaw
The Court notes that Baikal merely reiterates the arguments it propounded in its motion for reconsideration dated 17 September 2004, which we have already denied in our Resolution promulgated on 2 March 2005. Baikal continues to insist on the mootness of the instant petition on the ground of res judicata, the case a quo and Civil Case No. 1134-95 allegedly having identical parties and causes of action. These issues have all been resolved and adjudicated with finality in the Resolution, wherein the Court categorically declared that there is no identity of parties and causes of action between the two cases. Moreover, as clearly pointed out by petitioner Hi-Tone Marketing Corporation, Baikal's present motion is in reality a second motion for reconsideration, [3] cralaw which is a prohibited pleading under Sec. 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court.
It is true that in certain exceptional cases, such as where there are extraordinarily persuasive reasons, the Court entertains a second motion for reconsideration. Still, the Court has ruled that such second motions for reconsideration must be filed with express leave of court first obtained. [4] cralaw In the instant petition, Baikal not only failed to ask for prior leave of court, but more importantly, it was unable to show that exceptional reasons exist for the Court to give due course to its motion for clarification/second motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, the instant motion is DENIED with FINALITY.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 732-745.
[2] cralaw Id. at 745.
[3] cralaw Id. at 776-780.
[4] cralaw Fortich, et al. v. Corona, et al., 371 Phil. 672, 681 (1999) citing Ortigas and Company Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco, et al., 254 SCRA 234 (1996).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
