This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| On July 24, 1997, the CA's then Twelfth Division,[19] in CA-G.R. SP No. 42512 denied LCDC's petition for certiorari declaring that the granting of the petition and setting aside of the September 17, 1996 and October 14, 1996 Orders are manifestly pointless considering that the complaint itself had already been dismissed and subject of the appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 57119; that the reversal of the said Orders would have practical effect only if the dismissal were also set aside and the complaint reinstated; and that the dismissal of the complaint rendered the petition for certiorari devoid of any practical value.[20] LCDC's motion for reconsideration of the CA-G.R. SP No. 42512 decision was denied on March 4, 1998.[21] LCDC then filed with this Court, a petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 133145 which this Court dismissed on August 29, 2000.[22] | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We cannot pre-empt the decision that might be rendered in such appeal. The division to [which] it has been assigned should be left free to resolve the same. On the other hand, it is better that this Court speak with one voice.[36] This Court in G.R. No. 133145 also clearly stated that:x x x First, it should be stressed that the said Petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 42512) sought to set aside only the two interlocutory RTC Orders, not the December 3, 1996 Resolution dismissing the Complaint. Verily, the Petition could not have assailed the Resolution, which was issued after the filing of the former. | |||||