FIRST
DIVISION
REPUBLIC
OF THE G.R. Nos. 166309-10
PHILIPPINES, represented
by the COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS,
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
- v e r s u s
- CORONA,
AZCUNA and
TINGA, JJ.*
UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS
GmBH,
Respondent. Promulgated:
November
25, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
Parties must accept and respect the
final and executory decision of this Court. They should know when enough is
enough. They are not at liberty to continue filing clarificatory motions in
disregard of a previous directive that no further pleadings would be
entertained.
These cases were decided on March 9,
2007. The dispositive portion of the decision read:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 75359 and 75366 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Customs, upon payment of the necessary customs duties by respondent
Unimex Micro-Electronics GmBH, is hereby ordered to pay
respondent the value of the subject shipment in the amount of Euro 669,982.565.
Petitioner’s liability may be paid in Philippine currency, computed at the
exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment.
SO ORDERED.
The decision became final and
executory on August 2, 2007 and entry of judgment of the March 9, 2007 decision
was made on November 7, 2007.
Upon motion of respondent Unimex
Micro-Electronics GmBH, an elucidation of the March 9, 2007 decision was made
in a resolution dated December 10, 2007 where the Court explained:
legal interest on the amount awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from
September 5, 2001 up to the finality of the decision may be imposed and that,
thereafter, the legal interest shall be 12% per annum until the value of the
shipment is fully paid.
The
December 10, 2007 resolution also included a directive to the parties that no further
pleadings would be entertained. Despite this, however, respondent filed another
motion for further clarification on the manner of determining the reckoning
point of the imposition of the 6% legal interest while petitioner Republic of
the Philippines filed a motion for clarification of the resolution dated
December 10, 2007 (to which motion respondent filed a comment/opposition).
In view of
the resolution dated December 10, 2007 which ordered that no further pleadings would
be entertained, the Court expunged respondent’s motion for further
clarification from the records and noted without action petitioner’s motion for
clarification in resolutions dated January 30, 2008 and April 16, 2008.
In total
disregard of the foregoing, however, respondent filed yet another urgent motion
for the immediate resolution of all [alleged] pending issues for clarification.
The
motion is denied. No
issue remains pending in this case. Likewise, no issue needs to be further
clarified.
The
expunction of respondent’s motion for further clarification and the notation
without action of petitioner’s motion for clarification meant that the said
motions were denied. Moreover, the Court has sufficiently and clearly explained
the basis of its action in this case in its March 9, 2007 decision and December
10, 2007 resolution.
A
statement of this Court that no further pleadings would be entertained is a
declaration that the Court has already considered all issues presented by the
parties and that it has adjudicated the case with finality. It is a directive
to the parties to desist from filing any further pleadings or motions. Like all
other orders of this Court, it must be strictly observed by the parties. It
should not be circumvented by filing motions ill-disguised as requests
for clarification.
WHEREFORE, the
urgent motion for the “immediate resolution of all pending issues for
clarification” is hereby DENIED. The parties, their respective counsels,
agents or representatives are hereby WARNED not to file any further
pleadings or motions in this case under pain of contempt.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
* As replacement of Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro who is on official leave per Special Order No. 539.