Hernandez v. Del Rosario, Jr.

FIFTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 35650. May 17, 1996.] SYCIP SALAZAR HERNANDEZ & GATMAITAN, ET AL. , petitioner-appellee , vs . HON. RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO, JR., ET AL. , respondents-appellants . D E C I S I O N CAIZARES-NYE , J p : This is a petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction brought to this Court on appeal by respondents from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 18, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows, to wit: "xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Section 6 of Revenue Regulation 2-93 null and void, and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction that had been issued by this court against the respondents. No costs. SO ORDERED." On 21 December 1994, respondents-appellants filed a Manifestation and Motion alleging inter alia: xxx xxx xxx 3. As borne out by the records, the trial court, after hearing, rendered its decision on June 14, 1994 declaring as null and void said Sec. 6 of Revenue Regulation No. 2-93 and likewise declared as permanent the writ of preliminary injunction issued against respondents-appellants. 4. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court, taking cognizance of a similar case involving the same issue, promulgated on October 3, 1994 a consolidated decision in G.R. Nos. 109289 and 109446 entitled Rufino Tan vs. Ramon del Rosario Jr., et al. and Carag Caballes, Jamora and Somera Law Offices, et al., vs. Ramon del Rosario, et al., respectively, expressly upholding among others, the validity of Sec. 6 of Revenue Regulation No. 2-93 that was subject of the present appeal. Although this Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the undersigned are, however, attaching to this Manifestation and Motion a copy of said decision as Annex 'A' for its convenience and ready reference. 5. The aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court in said G.R. Nos. 109289 and 109446 is already final and this is attested by the High Court's Resolution dated November 24, 1994 denying with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in said cases a copy of which is attached hereto as Annex "B". 6. Since the Supreme Court had already declared Section 6 of Revenue Regulation No. 2-93 promulgated by respondents-appellants is valid this honorable Court will have to be guided in the High Court's ruling on the matter and perforce, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court which is inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling must necessarily be reversed and set aside. 7. Hence, the undersigned find it moot and academic to discuss and elucidate further on the merits of the present appeal in a memorandum after the issue had already been decided in favor of respondents-appellants. 8. For the purpose of compliance with the directive contained in the Notice dated November 18, 1994 of the Clerk of Court of this Honorable Court the undersigned had leave to file this Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Memorandum. xxx xxx xxx" (Pp. 2-3, op, cit.; pp. 9-10, rollo.) In the light of the aforecited decision of the Supreme Court and considering that no Comment Opposition thereto has been filed by petitioners-appellee, this Court finds that the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court must perforce be reversed and set aside. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the questioned Decision dated 14 June 1994 is hereby ordered REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs. SO ORDERED. Ramirez and Valdez, JJ . , concur. Callejo, Sr . , J ., is on leave