Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 2 2004.

G.R. No. 156132 (Citibank, N.A. and FNCB Finance vs. Modesta R. Sabeniano) and G.R. No. 152985 (Modesta R. Sabeniano vs. Citibank, N.A. and FNCB Finance.)

On January 19, 2004, this Court received a Federal Express box containing sealed envelopes addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Jose C. Vitug, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Dante O. Tinga. Inside the individually address envelopes were an Urgent Motion for the Release of the Decision with the implementation of the Entry of Judgment (Sabeniano v. Citibank and FNCB Finance, CA No. 51930, SC GR Nos. 152985 and 156132) dated January 13, 2004, signed by Modesta R. Sabeniano (Sabeniano), petitioner/respondent, and a pair of Liz Claiborne reading glasses contained in a dark blue tin case with the brand name “Liz Claiborne” inscribed in gold letters.

In her Urgent Motion, Sabeniano prayed that the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which she claims to have become final and executory by virtue of the Resolution dated November 13, 2002 and Entry of Judgment dated January 3, 2003 which the Court issued in G.R. No. 152985, be implemented.

Obviously adverting to the reading glasses, Sabeniano asked the Chief Justice and the above-mentioned justices to “accept my (her) wholehearted Valentine’s gift to you for giving justice to my case without strings attached at all cost.”[1]

A brief background of the captioned cases is in order.

On March 26, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. CV. No. 51930 entitled Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank) and Inventors’ Finance Corporation, doing business under the name and style of the FNCB Finance. Aggrieved by the Decision, Citibank and FNCB Finance filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 2, 2002 which the appellate court denied in its Resolution dated November 20, 2002.

Citibank and FNCB Finance then filed on January 10, 2003 a Petition for Review of even date docketed as G.R. No. 156132. In our Resolution of January 29, 2003, we denied the petition for lack of certification against forum shopping, verification and verified statement of material dates.

On the other hand, Sabeniano did not file a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeal’s Decision. Instead, she filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a petition for review with this Court docketed as G.R. No. 152985. However, Sabeniano did not file the intended petition. Hence, per the Resolution of November 13, 2002, the Court resolved “to DECLARE THIS CASE TERMINATED and DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court to INFORM the parties that the judgment sought to be reviewed has become final and executory.”[2] The Resolution was duly recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on January 3, 2003.

Subsequently, acting on Citibank’s and FNCB Finance’s Motion for Reconsideration, we resolved to grant the motion, reinstate the petition and require Sabeniano to file a comment thereto in our Resolution of June 23, 2003. Sabeniano filed a Comment dated July 17, 2003 to which Citibank and FNCB filed a Reply dated August 20, 2003.

From the foregoing, it is clear that Sabeniano had knowledge of, and fact participated in, the proceedings in G.R. No. 156132. She cannot feign ignorance of the proceedings therein and claim that the Decision of the Court of Appeals has become final and executory. More precisely, the Decision became final and executory only with regard to Sabeniano in view of her failure to file a petition for review within the extended period granted by the Court, and not to Citibank and FNCB Finance whose Petition for Review was Duly reinstated and is now submitted for decision.

Accordingly, the instant Urgent Motion is hereby DENIED.

The Court further resolves to require Sabeniano to SHOW CAUSE within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof why she should not be punished for contempt for improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice, for sending reading glasses purportedly as Valentine’s Day gifts to the aforementioned ten (10) members of this Court.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Asst. Div. Clerk of Court

[1] See last paragraph of the Urgent Motion for the Release of the Decision with the implementation of the Entry of Judgment dated January 13, 2004 filed by Sabeniano.