Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 16 2004.

G.R. No. 158970 (Edward Yap vs. Queensland Tokyo Commodities, Inc.)

In the Resolution of August 25, 2003, the Court denied petitioner’s motion for extension for failure to show that he has not lost the 15-day reglementary period to file a petition for review on certiorari as well as for the late filing and payment of the prescribed legal fees. In the same resolution, the petition itself was denied for late filing and non-compliance with the rules.

Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of said resolution, praying that the timeliness of his petition be reckoned from July 25, 2003, the date when he actually received a copy of the Resolution dated June 27, 2003 of the Court of Appeals denying his motion for reconsideration, not from July 8, 2003, the date when his counsel, Atty. Senen Jose Duadico, allegedly received the same. He claims that on October 2, 2003, he went to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and discovered that Atty. Duadico is not among its members. He also attributes his failure to comply with the rules too his first counsel, Atty. Mosib Bubong, who allegedly colluded with the Court of Appeals and respondents “in an orchestrated conspiracy to deprive [him] of his right to be represented by a competent counsel, and to cover-up the criminal liability of the [r]espondents, in return for the noted lien by the CA, and the failure to present & justify [his] foreclosure damages, as evidenced by his gross negligence xxx.” Petitioner further asks the Court to: (a) disregard his motion for extension filed on July 28, 2003; (b) admit his amended petition for review in lieu of the defective petition filed on July 29, 2003; and (c) automatically include Manila International Futures Exchange Inc. as a party to the complaint, the additional charges of the large-scale estafa and conspiracy to commit the same, and newly discovered evidence.

In its comment, respondent observes that petitioner failed to address the grounds cited by the Court in denying his petition, and instead, merely raised matters that muddled the issues. It opined that petitioner’s request that the timeliness of his petition be reckoned from the date of his alleged receipt of the assailed resolution, is a mere attempt to free himself from the effects of his counsel’s shortcomings, and at best, are merely self-serving. There is also nothing to prove that petitioner was not advised by his counsel of the adverse resolution of the Court of Appeals, it appearing that petitioner himself, without the assistance of counsel, undertook the filing of a motion for extension and petition for review. Even assuming that the motion for extension was seasonably filed, respondent argues that petitioner nonetheless failed to comply with the other requirement mentioned by the Court in its Resolution of August 25, 2003.

The Court finds the allegations in the motion for reconsideration not to be well taken. Petitioner cannot invoke the alleged negligence of Atty. Bubong as reason for his non-compliance with the rules considering that Atty. Bubong had been effectively discharge as counsel even before the Court of Appeals resolved the motion for reconsideration. Neither can the Court accede to the request of petitioner that the timeliness of his petition should be reckoned from the date when he received a copy of the Resolution dated June 27, 2003 of the Court of Appeals. Even in his original petition, petitioner tried to justify this by stating that when he went to the Court of Appeals on July 25, 2003 to get a copy of said resolution, he was surprised to learn that based on the return card, Atty. Duadico, through a certain Flora Laureta, already received a copy thereof on July 8, 2003. According to petitioner, Atty. Duadico denied receiving a copy of the Resolution dated June 27, 2003 and knowing Flora Laureta. The Court finds these claims as well as the affidavit executed by Atty. Duadico, which he notarized himself, all self-serving. While the Court can only surmise as to the motive of petitioner in inquiring on the status of Atty. Duadico with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines after receipt of this Court’s Resolution of August 25, 2003, the result of such inquiry is not compelling reason to set aside the denial of the motion for extension and petition for review on certiorari, which petitioner himself prepared. The issues raised by petitioner are factual in nature, calling for the examination and appreciation of evidence. The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to a review of pure errors of law (Francisco vs. Francisco-Alfonso, 354 SCRA 113).

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of petitioner is DENIED with FINALITY, there being no compelling reason to warrant the reconsideration sought. The incorporated motion for leave to file amended petition for review on certiorari and motion for automatic inclusion of additional parties, charges and evidence are NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court