[G.R. No. 125756. September
1, 2003]
DE BALDEMORO vs. CA
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder,
for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated SEP 1 2003.
G.R. No. 125756 (Gundita
Vda. De Baldemoro, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Bicol Development Bank,
Bienvenido P. Altea.)
Before this Court is a petition
for review on certiorari assailing the July 18, 1996 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 37241 upholding the January 28, 1992
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 5th Judicial Region, Branch 2,
Legazpi City in Civil Case No. 8457.
On July 9, 1991,
petitioners filed a complaint against
Bicol Development Bank and Provincial Sheriff Bienvenido P. Altea for annulment
of mortgage loan agreements and promissory notes and damages with prayer for
preliminary injunction/restraining order.
After trial, judgment was
rendered dismissing the complaint of petitioners and awarding actual damages to
the provincial sheriff in the amount of P1,000.00.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
trial court’s decision by Decision of July
18, 1996.
Hence, the present petition filed on August
14, 1996.
By Resolution of
September 16, 1996, this
Court required the respondents to comment on the petition.
On October 31, 1996,
respondents filed their comment.
By Resolution of
January 13, 1997, this
Court required petitioners to file a reply.
On February 11, 1997,
petitioners filed their reply.
By Resolution dated
February 24, 1997, this
Court required respondents to file a rejoinder.
On April 11, 1997,
respondents filed their rejoinder to petitioners’ reply.
On June 5, 2001,
petitioners filed a motion to withdraw the
petition alleging that the principal petitioner, Gundita Vda. De Baldemoro, is
already dead and her children are unwilling to substitute her as party
petitioners as they desire to have the controversy settled amicably with the
respondent bank.
By Resolution of January
13, 2003, this Court required respondents to comment on the motion
to withdraw the petition.
On March 12, 2003
respondent sheriff filed his comment on
the motion to withdraw, manifesting that he has no objection to the motion
provided that the damages awarded to him be paid.
On March 19, 2003,
respondent bank filed its comment
manifesting that it has no objection to the withdrawal of the petition.
There being no objection by private respondents to petitioners’
motion to dismiss, under the circumstances, this Court has to grant the motion.
WHEREFORE, the motion
to withdraw the present petition is hereby GRANTED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court