SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242616. February 20, 2019.]
SARAH JANE S. INOCENCIO, JOSE FROILAN T. SARABIA, FOR HIMSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HIS TWO (2) MINOR CHILDREN NAMELY: ANA JELAN SARABIA AND NIÑO SARABIA; MARY JULE S. CIPRIANO, FOR HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HER THREE (3) MINOR CHILDREN NAMELY: JULIE MAE S. CIPRIANO, JOHN PAUL S. CIPRIANO, AND LANZ BERNADETTE S. CIPRIANO; KAROMA DEE S. BRILLANTES, FOR HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HER THREE (3) MINOR CHILDREN NAMELY: MARIA TERESA S. BRILLANTES, GEMKARL S. BRILLANTES, AND PETER KARL S. BRILLANTES; JORGE GABRIEL T. SARABIA, FOR HIMSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HIS TWO (2) CHILDREN NAMELY: PETERSEL SARABIA AND FRITZ GERALD SARABIA; MARGARITA NOVA, T. SARABIA AND JANUS ARCADIO T. SARABIA, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 February 2019which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 242616 — Sarah Jane S. Inocencio, Jose Froilan T. Sarabia, for himself and in behalf of his two (2) minor children namely: Ana Jelan Sarabia and Niño Sarabia; Mary Jule S. Cipriano, for herself and in behalf of her three (3) minor children namely: Julie Mae S. Cipriano, John Paul S. Cipriano, and Lanz Bernadette S. Cipriano; Karoma Dee S. Brillantes, for herself and in behalf of her three (3) minor children namely: Maria Teresa S. Brillantes, Gemkarl S. Brillantes, and Peter Karl S. Brillantes; Jorge Gabriel T. Sarabia, for himself and in behalf of his two (2) children namely: Petersel Sarabia and Fritz Gerald Sarabia; Margarita Nova, T. Sarabia and Janus Arcadio T. Sarabia versus Philippine National Bank
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated December 11, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated August 16, 2018 in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 04918, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition.
After a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court finds that the petitioners failed to present any cogent and convincing argument warranting the reversal of the RTC and CA's finding that the principle of res judicata applies squarely in the instant case. There is no reversible error committed by the court a quo that warrants the Court's discretionary exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. HEITAD
Therefore, the Court denies the instant Petition for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. (HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 33-48. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi concurring.
2. Both the Motion for Reconsideration and assailed Resolution were not attached with the instant Petition.