[G.R. No. 103882. February 15,
2000]
REP.
OF THE PHILS. vs. CA, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted
hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court dated FEB 15 2000.
G.R No 103882
(Republic of the Philippines, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Court of
Appeals and Republic Real Estate Corporation, respondents, Cultural Center of
the Philippines, intervenor.)
G.R No 105276
(Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation, petitioners, vs.
Court of Appeals and Republic of the Philippines, respondents.)
Docketed as G R No 139463, the petition seeks to
declare a mistrial in G. R. No 103882, entitled “Republic of the Philippines,
Petitioner versus The Honorable Court of Appeals and Republic Real Estate Corporation,
Respondents, and Cultural Center of the Philippines, Intervenor,” and in G R No
105276, entitled, “Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation, Petitioners
versus Court of Appeals and Republic of the Philippines, et al, Respondents,” 1 which consolidated cases were decided by this Court on
November 25, 1998.contending, that:
A. THE SUPREME COURT COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE
FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COMMISSIONED TRIAL COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, THAT
RREC INDUBITABLY RECLAIMED FIFTY-FIVE (55) HECTARES AT MANILA BAY, AND INSTEAD,
SUBSTITUTED, REPLACED AND IMPLANTED ITS OWN FINDING THAT RREC DID NOT RECLAIM
ANY AREA IN MANILA BAY;
B. THE SUPREME COURT AWARDED TODAY, TO RREC AND
PASAY CITY, AS QUANTUM MERUIT COMPENSATION, THE DIMINISHED AMOUNT OF P10,926,071.29
AT ITS 1962 PRICE LEVELS AND GAVE THE RECLAIMED LAND TO CCP, WHICH LAND HAS
DRAMATICALLY INCREASED IN VALUE THROUGH TIME;
C. THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT ALLOW RREC AND PASAY CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO ORALLY ARGUE ON THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE RULING ON SAID MOTION DESPITE THE NEED AND URGENCY OF ORALLY PRESENTING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT THE EGREGIOUS MISTAKES OF THE HIGH COURT AS MANIFESTED IN ITS DECISION;
D.
THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO FIRST RESOLVE RREC AND PASAY CITY’S PENDING
“MOTION (TO INHIBIT)” BEFORE ISSUING ITS DENIAL OF RREC AND PASAY CITY’S
“MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION”;
E. THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT EVEN REQUIRE THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE CCP TO COMMENT OR RESPOND TO RREC AND PASAY
CITY’S ‘MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION’, OR AWAIT A RESPONSE THEREON FROM THEM,
BEFORE ISSUING A DENIAL OF THE SAME.
On September 14, 1999, the Court resolved to treat the
present petition as a mere incident in the above-noted cases.
The issues touched upon in the first two grounds
aforestated i.e., the reclamation by RREC of 55 hectares of land and the
amount of compensation awarded to it, were deliberated upon and resolved in the
aforesaid Decision of November 25, 1998 in G.R. Nos. 103882 and 105276. Any exception or objection thereto, which
was available, should have been raised by petitioners in their Motion for
Reconsideration of the said Decision.
Basic is the rule that a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment or
proceeding should include all objections then available, and all objections not
so included shall be deemed waived (1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 15,
Section 8). Consequently, petitioners
can not now be heard this late to complain, after having had the opportunity to
advance their arguments in not just one but two motions for reconsideration,
the first on December 7, 1998, and the second on April 8, 1999, both of which
motions for reconsideration were denied by the Court with finality.
The other three grounds invoked by petitioners are
matters within the exclusive discretion and prerogative of this Court to
resolve. Motions for hearings or oral
arguments as well as the inhibition of members of the Court cannot be granted
to party-litigants, as a matter of right.
They must be based on cogent and valid reasons. Allowance of such motions is entirely
addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and its rulings thereon are not
to be disturbed in the absence of grave error.
When the Court denied the motions for reconsideration, it did so after a
thorough study of the issues deliberated upon.
There is a mistrial where there are serious
irregularities in the proceedings resulting in a miscarriage of justice and
gross violation of the constitutional right of the parties to due process of
law. In subject cases, the Court
discerns neither procedural error nor violation of petitioners’ right to due
process. Petitioners were afforded more
than enough opportunity to ventilate all their contentions, submissions and
arguments in all the proceedings, starting from the Court of First Instance of
Rizal in Pasay City and all the way to this Court.
Indeed, the decision of this Court in G.R. Nos. 103882
and 105276 must be accorded finality and respect; otherwise stability of
judicial decisions is imperiled.
WHEREFORE, for
utter want of merit, the PETITION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL (WITH PRAYER TO SET
CASE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT) is hereby DENIED with finality.
This Resolution is final, and it is understood that no
further pleadings shall be allowed.
Under pain of contempt, petitioners and the other parties are hereby
enjoined from filing any other petition or pleading in these cases. Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes took no
part. Buena, J., is on leave.
Very
truly yours,
Clerk
of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst.
Clerk of Court