[G.R. No. 144155. January 22, 2001]

ROBLES vs. SC FIRST DIVISION, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 22 2001.

G.R. No. 144155 (Felicidad Robles vs. Supreme Court First Division, Pacita I. Habana, Alicia L. Cinco, et al.)

The Court Resolves to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus for being an inappropriate recourse against a Division of this Court. A decision of a Division is the decision of the Court itself. The final disposition of a Division is well nigh conclusive on, and will not be disturbed by, the Court en banc and any of its Divisions.

In a resolution, dated 05 April 2000, in G.R. No. 142130, entitled Neugene Marketing, Inc., Leoncio Tan, et al. vs. Hon. Fidel P. Purisima, et al., this Court has said:

“x x x It would be the height of absurdity to expect the Court, or any court for that matter, to issue a x x x remedy against itself. The Court is asked to stand as the judge and the respondent at one and the same instance. Surely, no one can be judge in his own acts without being charged with incompetence, bias, and partiality. Insisting on this would result in the violation of the very fundamental principles of judicial due process of law. Petitions such as this must never be allowed to prosper (En Banc Resolution, Joel G. Miranda vs. Supreme Court, En Banc, The Executive Secretary and the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, G.R. No. 140130 [October 26, 1999]).”

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y CARREON

Clerk of Court