[G.R. No. 131276. August 1, 2006]

PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, versus GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION AND CITY TRUST BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS

En Banc

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 1, 2006

G.R. No. 131276 (Philippine Economic Zone Authority, Petitioner, versus General Milling Corporation and City Trust Banking Corporation, Respondents); and

G.R. No. 131684 (Philippine Economic Zone Authority, Petitioner, versus General Milling Corporation, Respondent.)

For our resolution is the Motion for Clarification dated December 13, 2005 filed by the General Milling Corporation (GMC), respondent; the comment thereon filed on June 7, 2006 by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), petitioner; and respondent GMC's reply to comment filed on June 14, 2006.

On August 2, 2005, we issued a Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant Joint Urgent Motion For Reconsideration filed by PEZA is GRANTED and our Resolution dated April 13, 2005 is RECONSIDERED. The two complaints for eminent domain in Civil Cases Nos. 3007-L and 490-L are REINSTRATED. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER is hereby issued directing the Regional Trial Court, Branches 27 and 54, Lapu-Lapu City, to enjoin Sheriff Basilio M. Pimentel from implementing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 3007-L, specifically from garnishing PEZA's funds in the Land Bank of the Philippines, Lapu-Lapu City.

Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above Resolution but it was denied with finality in our Resolution dated August 30, 2005.[1]

Subsequently, respondent filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which was again denied in our Resolution[2] dated October 18, 2005 for being a prohibited pleading.

In its present motion, respondent raises the following issues for our clarifications:

(1) With the reinstatement of the two complaints for eminent domain, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 3007-L and 490-L before the trial court, from which the present proceedings emanated, and the subsequent filing by petitioner PEZA of two new complaints again for eminent domain with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu during the pendency of the instant petitions with this Court, which of the two sets of complaints may respondent join issues with the Solicitor General, considering that the latter has not withdrawn the two new ones? Is petitioner not guilty of forum shopping?

(2) The Solicitor General belatedly filed his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Third Division Resolution dated April 13, 2005 dismissing the petition. But the Court En Banc in its Resolution dated August 2, 2005 reconsidered the Third Division Resolution. May the same considerations justifying the relaxation of the Rules of Court laid down by this Court concerning the filing of a second motion for reconsideration be likewise applied to the motions filed by respondent?

(3) Can the negligence of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) in failing to monitor the status of its cases in the Office of the Solicitor General be considered against PEZA, its client?

(4) When can the Court En Banc assume jurisdiction over a motion to reconsider a Decision or Resolution of any of its Divisions?

In his Comment, the Solicitor General counters that:

(a) The subsequent filing of the two expropriation cases was to avert the disruption of the economic activity in petitioner's economic zone and the dislocation of the investors therein. With the reinstatement of the two earlier complaints for eminent domain, the new expropriation cases are rendered functus officio upon the finality of the Order reinstating the initial complaints.

(b) This Court properly considered the interest of substantial justice to justify relaxation of the Rules in resolving petitioner's Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(c) Respondent's second motion for reconsideration of this Court's En Banc Resolution dated August 2, 2005 does not fall under any of the exceptional circumstances that would justify the relaxation of the Rules.

(d) The rule that negligence of counsel (OGCC) binds the client is not absolute. It does not apply to the instant cases because counsel's negligence was without any participatory negligence on the part of the client (PEZA), and the higher interest of justice warrants the relaxation of the Rules in favor of the latter.

(e) This Court, for compelling reasons, correctly exercised its authority to resolve these cases En Banc.

Respondent's queries in No. 1 above are matters best addressed to the trial court for disposition. The two new complaints for eminent domain are still pending with the trial court, hence, the issue of forum shopping should first be presented by respondent to that court through a proper motion.

As regards respondent's queries in Nos. 2 to 5, suffice it to say that we have already considered the same in our Resolution dated August 30, 2005 denying with finality its Motion for Reconsideration of our Resolution dated August 2, 2005.

WHEREFORE, we DENY respondent's Motion for Clarification. No further pleadings shall be entertained.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Clerk of Court