CASE 2015-0001: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT; JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS, MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T. CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS- MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. V ALBUENA, JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ, ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA, JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN, ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN 0. NIEVA, RESPONDENTS; CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, INTERVENORS (10 MARCH 2015, G.R. NO. 187836, G.R. NO. 187916, G.R. NOS. 187836 & 187916, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECT/S: IMPORT OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; THE VERY NATURE OF DEPOTS HAS NO PLACE IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA; THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO ORDINANCES IS MORE APPARENT THAN REAL. THE TWO ORDINANCES CAN BE RECONCILED. ORDINANCE NO. 8027 IS APPLICABLE TO THE AREA PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED THEREIN WHEREAS ORDINANCE NO. 8119 IS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE CITY OF MANILA, (BRIEF TITLE: SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. LIM)
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to:
- DENY Shell’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 November 2014;
- DENY the prayers in the Motion for Clarification of Chevron that: a) the wordings “the very nature of the depots where millions of liter[s] of highly flammable and highly volatile products x x x [have] no place in a densely populated area” be removed from the Decision dated 25 November 2014; and b) the submission of an updated comprehensive plan and relocation schedule, including the period for relocation, be deferred until after the Motion is resolved with finality;
- CLARIFY that the relocation and transfer necessarily include the complete removal of the facilities from the Pandacan terminals and should be made part of the required comprehensive plan and relocation schedule; and
- REMIND Petron that the Court did not, by noting its “Manifestation” dated 30 November 2010, consent to consider January 2016 as a separate deadline for compliance with our Decision, which, to repeat, · includes the removal of facilities after cessation of operations. The time lines prescribed in the assailed Decision shall be observed to the letter.
In anticipation of further attempts to delay the enforcement of this Court’s Decision dated 25 November 2014, the parties to these cases are hereby REMINDED of the pronouncements in Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco23 on the import of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Thus:
The denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification of the judgment or final order. It means not only that the grounds relied upon are lacking in merit but also that any other, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the judgment; and this is true, whatever may be the title given to such motion or application, whether it be “second motion for reconsideration” or “motion for clarification” or “plea for due process” or “prayer for a second look,” or “motion to defer, or set aside, entry of judgment,” or x xx, etc .. 24 (Emphasis supplied).
This Resolution is final. Under pain of contempt, no further pleadings, motions or papers in the guise of the above-enumerated submissions shall, thus, be entertained in these cases.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT IS THE IMPORT OF THE DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION?
The denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification of the judgment or final order. It means not only that the grounds relied upon are lacking in merit but also that any other, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the judgment; and this is true, whatever may be the title given to such motion or application, whether it be “second motion for reconsideration” or “motion for clarification” or “plea for due process” or “prayer for a second look,” or “motion to defer, or set aside, entry of judgment,” or x xx, etc ..
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 