ON DECEMBER 4, 2018, UNDERSIGNED BLOGGER, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF THE HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES AND ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ Y REYES AND SPECIFICALLY OF THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, FILED A MEMORANDUM WITH THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION CLERK OF COURT. THE MEMORANADUM, WHICH WAS SELF-EXPLANATORY, POINTED OUT THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY JUDGE LELU CONTRERAS IN IMPLEMENTING THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION THAT LACKED JURISDICTION AND WAS CLEARLY CATEGORIZED AS A VOID JUDGMENT, WAS PROMPTLY NULLIFIED BY THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 SUPREME COURT DECISION.
THE VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF THE UNDERSIGNED ALSO POINTED OUT THE UNTRUTH AND IRREGULARITY IN THE CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RTC BRANCH 34 CLERK OF COURT IN DECLARING THAT THERE WERE NO NEW ORDERS FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO REVERSE OR NULLIFY THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION AND FEBRUARY 21, 2007 RTC ORDER WHICH FURTHER COMPLICATED THE IRREGULARITY. EVENTS AND EVIDENCE POINTS TO A SERIOUS POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WAS REALLY SOMETHING WRONG IN THIS. WHILE IT IS THE BASIC RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE HONORABLE COURT TO STUDY THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AND DETERMINE IF THERE WERE REALLY NO ORDERS BY THE SUPREME COURT BY SIMPLY BACK TRACKING ON THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE CASE, THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT HAS THAT JUDICIOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FAITHFUL BY CHECKING OVER THE RECORDS AND TO INFORM HIS OR HER PRESIDING JUDGE OF SUCH RECORD. IF THEY WOULD HAVE ONLY STUDIED THE EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED AS DISCUSSED IN THE WRIT OF EXECUTION, AND THE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS THAT WERE EARLIER RENDERED AND RECEIVED BY THE RTC BRANCH 34, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CLEARED OF ANY WRONG DOING FOR THIS.
THE VERIFIED MEMORANDUM OF THE UNDERSIGNED ALSO POINTED OUT THE UNTRUTH AND IRREGULARITY IN THE CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RTC BRANCH 34 CLERK OF COURT IN DECLARING THAT THERE WERE NO NEW ORDERS FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO REVERSE OR NULLIFY THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION AND FEBRUARY 21, 2007 RTC ORDER WHICH FURTHER COMPLICATED THE IRREGULARITY. EVENTS AND EVIDENCE POINTS TO A SERIOUS POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WAS REALLY SOMETHING WRONG IN THIS. WHILE IT IS THE BASIC RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE HONORABLE COURT TO STUDY THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AND DETERMINE IF THERE WERE REALLY NO ORDERS BY THE SUPREME COURT BY SIMPLY BACK TRACKING ON THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE CASE, THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT HAS THAT JUDICIOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FAITHFUL BY CHECKING OVER THE RECORDS AND TO INFORM HIS OR HER PRESIDING JUDGE OF SUCH RECORD. IF THEY WOULD HAVE ONLY STUDIED THE EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED AS DISCUSSED IN THE WRIT OF EXECUTION, AND THE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS THAT WERE EARLIER RENDERED AND RECEIVED BY THE RTC BRANCH 34, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CLEARED OF ANY WRONG DOING FOR THIS.
THE LETTER DATED DECEMBER 4, 2018, BEING SELF EXPLANATORY, WAS GIVEN DUE COURSE BY THE SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION CLERK OF COURT, WHO ISSUED A RESOLUTION ON JUNE 17, 2019, THAT GRANTED THE PRAYERS IN THE MEMORANDUM LETTER OF HEREIN BLOGGER. ATTACHED TO THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT JUNE 17, 2019 RESOLUTION.
.tif)
No comments:
Post a Comment