This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-12-22 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Noting that most of the issues raised in the complaint are sub judice,[32] the OCA stresses that a study of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 71527[33] reveals that the issues raised therein by PNB are essentially the same as those raised in the instant complaint. The records of the Court of Appeals show that a decision favorable to PNB was rendered in the case on December 11, 2002 but on December 20, 2002 the spouses Limso filed a Motion for Reconsideration which is still to be resolved. Thus, the OCA concludes, on those matters the complaint is still premature, and any action this Court may come out thereon may injudiciously pre-empt whatever action the Court of Appeals may take on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the spouses Limso.[34] | |||||