[G.R. No. 168418.
DANTE C. VALENCIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JUNE E. CUA
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 28, 2006
G.R. No. 168418 (Dante C. Valencia v. Commission on Elections and June E. Cua)
Before us is a Letter-Protest
dated March 1, 2006 and a Motion For
Leave To File Incorporated Third Motion For Reconsideration Or Clarification Of
Denial Resolutions Of The Case At Bar, dated March 9, 2006. Both were filed by petitioner Dante C.
Valencia.
The Letter-Protest bewails the
Court's alleged "horrendous treatment" of petitioner's petition for
certiorari and two subsequent letter-complaints dated
On the other hand, the Motion For Leave To File Incorporated Third
Motion For Reconsideration Or Clarification Of Denial Resolutions Of The Case
At Bar, seeks reconsideration of the following minute resolutions: 1)
Resolution dated July 5, 2005, dismissing the petition for failure to
sufficiently show that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the COMELEC en banc in rendering its challenged
resolution; 2) Resolution dated October 4, 2005, denying for lack of merit the Motion for Reconsideration of the July
5, 2005 resolution; 3) Resolution dated January 24, 2006 denying for lack of
merit the Motion for Leave to File
Incorporated Second Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Denial
Resolutions of the Case at Bar for being a prohibited pleading under Rule
52, Section 2 in relation to Rule 56 Section 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The aforestated
letter-protest and motion uniformly express petitioner's,
sentiment on the Court's disposition of his petition. Petitioner is alarmed why his petition for
certiorari, filed in the afternoon of
It may be recalled that in his
petition for certiorari, petitioner assailed the en banc Resolution of the COMELEC affirming that of its second
division which dismissed his petition for disqualification of private
respondent as candidate for congressman on ground of lack of jurisdiction in
view of the latter’s proclamation as the winning candidate and eventual
assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives.[1]
In our
To be sure, minute resolutions
denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions are the result of a thorough
deliberation among the Members of the Court although they are promulgated
through the Clerk of Court. They need
not be signed by the Members of the Court who took part in the deliberations
thereon, nor do they require the Certification of the Chief Justice (unlike
decisions and signed resolutions) in order to avoid undue delay in the
disposition of cases.[2] Petitioner
would prefer a resolution which spells out why and how the Court arrived at its
conclusions. Suffice it to state that
minute resolutions denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions affirm the
assailed resolution/decision of the lower court or tribunal.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's Letter-Protest
dated March 1, 2006 and Motion For Leave
To File Incorporated Third Motion For Reconsideration Or Clarification Of
Denial Resolutions Of The Case At Bar, dated March 9, 2006, are merely NOTED without action.
No further pleadings shall be entertained by the Court.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court