SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229306. April 23, 2018.]
LEO ANGELES, petitioner, vs.AMB ALC HOLDINGS AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 April 2018which reads as follows: ISHCcT
"G.R. No. 229306 (Leo Angeles v. AMB ALC Holdings and Management Corporation, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the December 11, 2015 Decision 1 and November 29, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 139247 for failure of petitioner Leo Angeles (Angeles) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing Civil Case No. 2014-0197-D for lack of locus standi to institute the complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages.
As the CA correctly ruled, Angeles failed to sufficiently allege and show: (a) such personal and substantial interest, not mere incidental or general interest common to all residents and citizens of the City of Dagupan; 3(b) that public funds were illegally disbursed or would be used for unlawful purposes affecting its wastage; 4 or (c) that the City Government, in entering into a transaction with respondent AMB ALC Holdings and Management Corporation, Inc., has caused material injury to its coffers and the residents, including Angeles. While the Court has in a number of cases relaxed the rule on standing, it did so where serious constitutional questions are involved or when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest, 5 none of which are availing in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 44-53. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino concurring.
2.Id. at 55-56.
3. See Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 656 Phil. 246, 266 (2011), citing Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 895-896 (2003); and David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 755-757 (2006).
4. See Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 650 Phil. 326, 336 (2010).
5. See Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 591 Phil. 393, 404 (2008); Tatad v. Secretary of Department of Energy, 346 Phil. 321, 358 (1997).