GR 164648; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164648; June 19, 2009
ERIC L. LEE, Petitioner, vs. HON. HENRY J. TROCINO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 62, BAGO CITY, THE OFFICE OF THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 62, BAGO CITY, and MAGDALENO M. PEĂ‘A, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eric L. Lee filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplement thereto, seeking reconsideration of this Court’s August 6, 2008 Decision which denied his petition. The assailed Decision affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of his petitions for indirect contempt and for prohibition/certiorari aimed at enjoining the Regional Trial Court of Bago City from proceeding with Civil Case Nos. 754 and 1088. Petitioner also filed an Urgent Motion for Consolidation, requesting that this case be consolidated with three other related petitions pending before other Divisions of the Court (G.R. Nos. 145817, 145822, and 162562), arguing they involve identical material facts and legal issues.
ISSUE
The primary issue for resolution is whether the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Supplement thereto have merit, particularly in light of his arguments regarding the need for consolidation with other pending cases and the alleged prematurity of certain pronouncements in the August 6, 2008 Decision.
RULING
The Motion for Reconsideration and its Supplement are denied for lack of merit. The Court finds no compelling reason to reverse its prior denial of the petition for indirect contempt and related remedies. Regarding the Urgent Motion for Consolidation, which was previously denied, the Court reiterates that consolidation, while discretionary, is not warranted here as the core issue in this petition—whether the acts of the lower court and respondents constituted contempt—is distinct from the substantive issues in the other pending cases concerning agency liability, execution pending appeal, and property redemption.
However, the Court acknowledges the petitioner’s argument that certain pronouncements in the August 6, 2008 Decision may pre-empt issues pending in other Divisions. Specifically, the Court had made findings on Urban Bank’s liability under an agency agreement and the propriety of execution pending appeal. To avoid any potential conflict or interference with the resolutions in G.R. Nos. 162562 and 145822, where these very issues are squarely presented for final determination, the Court hereby WITHDRAWS those specific pronouncements from its August 6, 2008 Decision. This withdrawal is a procedural measure to preserve the integrity of the separate proceedings and ensure that those substantive matters are resolved exclusively in the appropriate cases. It does not, however, affect the disposition of the instant petition, as the Court continues to find no basis to characterize the respondents’ actions as contemptuous. The denial of the contempt petition thus stands.