FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198444. July 23, 2014.]
CITIBANK N.A. AND THE CITIGROUP PRIVATE BANK, petitioners,vs.ESTER H. TANCO-GABALDON, ARSENIO TANCO AND THE HEIRS OF KU TIONG LAM, respondents.
[G.R. Nos. 198469-70. July 23, 2014.]
CAROL LIM, petitioner,vs.ESTER H. TANCO-GABALDON, ARSENIO TANCO AND THE HEIRS OF KU TIONG LAM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution * dated July 23, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198444 (Citibank N.A. and the Citigroup Private Bank vs. Ester H. Tanco-Gabaldon, Arsenio Tanco and the heirs of Ku Tiong Lam) and G.R. Nos. 198469-70 (Carol Lim vs. Ester H. Tanco-Gabaldon, Arsenio Tanco and the heirs of Ku Tiong Lam). — On September 4, 2013, the Court promulgated a Decision 1 in the above-cited cases, denying the consolidated petitions. The Court ruled that: (1) the criminal complaints filed by the respondents against the petitioners for violation of the Securities Regulation Code was filed within the 12-year prescriptive period provided by Section 1 of Act No. 3326; and (2) the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the administrative complaint against the petitioners was not barred by laches.
Both the petitioners filed separate motions for reconsideration of the Decision, to which the respondents filed their Consolidated Comment. Pending resolution of the motions, the petitioners filed separate manifestations and motions stating that the respondents, through Ester H. Tanco-Gabaldon, has desisted from pursuing the complaint against them and has executed an affidavit of desistance. 2 Thus, the petitioners moved for the withdrawal of their respective motions for reconsideration and prayed for the issuance of an entry of judgment with regard to the Court Decision dated September 4, 2013.
The Court required the respondents to file a comment on the petitioners' manifestations and motions, and in their Comment filed on June 10, 2014, the respondents confirmed the execution of the affidavit of desistance and endorsed the petitioners' motion for the withdrawal of their motions for reconsideration. EHTIcD
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petitioners' motion for the withdrawal of their motions for reconsideration. The Decision dated September 4, 2013 is therefore considered FINAL AND EXECUTORY.Let entry of judgment be issued in due course.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Correction: Date of Resolution changed from July 21, 2014 to July 23, 2014.
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 198444),pp. 1119-1128.
2. Id. at 1174-1180; rollo (G.R. No. 198469-70),pp. 1119-1123.