LEGAL NOTE 0086: PRIMER ON SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

SOURCE: LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYBAY, PROVINCE OF LEYTE; MUNICIPALITY OF BOGO, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF CATBALOGAN, PROVINCE OF WESTERN SAMAR; MUNICIPALITY OF TANDAG, PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BORONGAN, PROVINCE OF EASTERN SAMAR; AND MUNICIPALITY OF TAYABAS, PROVINCE OF QUEZON  ETC. (G.R. NO. 176951 ETC., 28 JUNE 2011, BERSAMIN, J.) SUBJECT: SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (BRIEF TITLE: LEAGUE OF CITIES VS. COMELEC).

============================

 

WHAT IS THE RULE GOVERNING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN ORDINARY COURTS?

RULE 2, RULE 15.

Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration.

No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. (n)

 

CAN A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE ENTERTAINED?

GENERALLY, NO BECAUSE SECTION 2, RULE 15 IS UNQUALIFIED.

The Motion for Reconsideration, being a second motion for reconsideration, cannot be entertained. As to that, Section 2[1][4] of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court is unqualified.

 

WHEN CAN A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE ENTERTAINED?

THERE ARE TWO CONDITIONS:

–                     THERE MUST BE EXTRA ORDINARY PERSUASIVE REASON.

–                     AN EXPRESS LEAVE HAS BEEN FIRST OBTAINED.

. . . and only for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave has been first obtained may a second motion for reconsideration be entertained.[2][6]

 

WHY IS THAT SO?

BECAUSE A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A RESTRICTIVE PLEADING. OR THERE IS A RESTRICTIVE POLICY AGAINST SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

 

WHAT IS THE RULE GOVERNING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE SUPREME COURT?

SECTION 3, RULE 15 OF THE INTERNAL RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT.

Section 3. Second motion for reconsideration. – The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership.          There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of justice” when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court’s declaration.

In the Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.

WHAT IS THE FULL RULING ON THE ISSUE IN THE LEAGUE  OF CITIES VS COMELEC CASE?

THE RULING READS:

The Motion for Reconsideration, being a second motion for reconsideration, cannot be entertained. As to that, Section 2[3][4] of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court is unqualified. The Court has firmly held that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading,[4][5] and only for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave has been first obtained may a second motion for reconsideration be entertained.[5][6] The restrictive policy against a second motion for reconsideration has been re-emphasized in the recently promulgated Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, whose Section 3, Rule 15 states:

Section 3. Second motion for reconsideration. – The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership.          There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of justice” when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court’s declaration.

In the Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.

NOTE: WHEN THE SC STATES THAT A DECISION IS ALREADY FINAL NO SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SHALL BE ENTERTAINED.

We observe, too, that the prescription that a second motion for reconsideration “can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court’s declaration” even renders the denial of the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration more compelling. As the resolution of April 12, 2011 bears out,[6][7] the ruling sought to be reconsidered became final by the Court’s express declaration. Consequently, the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration is immediately warranted.

 

IN THE LEAGUE OF CITIES VS. COMELEC, PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT A SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS PREVIOUSLY ENTERTAINED. THEREFORE, THEIR MOTION FOR ANOTHER RECONSIDERATION MUST BE ENTERTAINED. IS THEIR CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO.  BECAUSE THE SC, WITH REGARDS TO THE PREVIOUS SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNANIMOUSLY DECLARED THAT THE SECOND  MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS NOT A PROHIBITED PLEADING. HERE THERE WAS NO SUCH DECLARATION.

Still, the petitioners seem to contend that the Court had earlier entertained and granted the respondents’ own second motion for reconsideration.  There is no similarity between then and now, however, for the Court en banc itself unanimously declared in the resolution of June 2, 2009 that the respondents’ second motion for reconsideration was “no longer a prohibited pleading.”[7][8] No similar declaration favors the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. (REMEMBER: UNANIMOUS AND EN BANK DECLARATION NEEDED. IT SEEMS THAT IF YOU MEET SUCH CONDITION EVEN A 10TH MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WILL STILL BE ENTERTAINED? BASIC RULE IS HE WHO HAS THE POWER TO CREATE HAS THE POWER TO DESTROY?)

 

 

============================

 

[1][4]   Section 2. Second motion for reconsideration. – No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.

[2][6]     Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, supra.

[3][4]   Section 2. Second motion for reconsideration. – No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.

[4][5]           Securities and Exchange Commission v. PICOP Resources, Inc., 566 SCRA 451 (2008); APO Fruits corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, April 5, 2011; Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, 254 SCRA 234.

[5][6]     Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, supra.

[6][7]   Supra, note 2.

[7][8]   The resolution ofJune 2, 2009 pertinently declared:

xxx

In the present case, the Court voted on the second motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent cities. In effect, the Court allowed the filing of the second motion for reconsideration.  Thus, the second motion for reconsideration was no longer a prohibited pleading.  However, for lack of the required number of votes to overturn the18 November 2009 Decision and31 March 2009 Resolution, the Court denied the second motion for reconsideration in its28 April 2009 Resolution.

xxx