FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239212. October 15, 2018.]
SPOUSES FIDEL CANUBIDA, JR. AND AMELITA ESCALONA-CANUBIDA, REPRESENTED BY SISTER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ARSENIA V. ESCALONA, petitioners,vs. CONSTANCIA CALERO AND SPOUSES PAUL AND SUSAN CALERO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 15, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239212 — Spouses Fidel Canubida, Jr. and Amelita Escalona-Canubida, represented by sister and attorney-in-fact, Arsenia V. Escalona, Petitioners, v. Constancia Calero and Spouses Paul and Susan Calero, Respondents.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: (1) failure to fully pay the docket and other fees, as well as deposit for costs, in violation of Sections 3 and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 5 (c), Rule 56 of the said Rules, the amount remitted being only P3,730.00; (2) failure to state the material dates showing when notice of judgment subject thereof was received, when a motion for reconsideration was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received, all in violation of Sections 4 (b) and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56 of the said Rules; and (3) submitting a defective certification against forum shopping in that it was not made by the principal parties, in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and that the Special Power of Attorney executed by herein petitioners spouses in favor of Arsenia V. Escalona was not notarized and was a machine copy only.
It is worthy to note that the assailed Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision dated November 16, 2011 was already the subject of a petition for review filed before this Court and docketed as G.R. No. 206180. 1 The previous petition for review was denied by this Court per Resolution dated July 15, 2013. 2 In fact, an Entry of Judgment was already issued in G.R. No. 206180 on March 13, 2014. 3 Following the doctrine of res judicata, where "a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all later suits and on all points and matters determined in the previous suit," 4 any issue in relation to the CA's November 16, 2011 Decision must be laid to rest in view of the finality of this Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 206180.
The Court of Appeals is dropped as party-respondent pursuant to Section 4 (a), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. HCSAIa
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per S.O. No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member of the First Division per S.O. No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See rollo, pp. 55-56.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 56.
4.Spouses Topacio v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 649 Phil. 331, 342 (2010).