Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP), represented by LCP National President Jerry
P. Treas; City of Calbayog,
represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners, - versus - 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, Respondents. x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP), represented by LCP National President Jerry
P. Treas; City of Calbayog,
represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners, versus Commission on Elections;
Municipality of Lamitan, Province of Basilan; Municipality of Tabuk, Province
of Kalinga; Municipality of Bayugan, Province of Agusan del Sur; Municipality
of Batac, Province of Ilocos Norte; Municipality of Mati, Province of Davao
Oriental; and Municipality of Guihulngan, Province of Negros Oriental, Respondents. x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x League of Cities of the
Philippines (LCP), represented by LCP National President Jerry
P. Treas; City of Calbayog,
represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento; and Jerry P. Treas, in his personal capacity as Taxpayer, Petitioners, - versus - Commission on Elections;
Municipality of Cabadbaran, Province of Agusan del Norte; Municipality of
Carcar, Province of Cebu; Municipality of El Salvador, Province of Misamis
Oriental; Municipality of Naga, Cebu; and Department
of Budget and Management, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 176951 G.R. No. 177499 G.R. No. 178056 Present: CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated: June
28, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
BERSAMIN, J.:
We
hereby consider and resolve: (a) the petitioners Motion for Leave to File Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution of 12 April 2011, attached to which is a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Resolution
dated 12 April 2011 dated April 29, 2011 (Motion For
Reconsideration), praying that the resolution
of April 12, 2011 be reconsidered and set aside; and (b) the respondents Motion for Entry of Judgment dated May
9, 2011.
After
thorough consideration of the incidents, we deny the Motion for
Reconsideration and grant the
Motion for Entry of Judgment.
As
its prayer for relief shows, the Motion for Reconsideration seeks the
reconsideration, reversal, or setting aside of the resolution of
Another indicium of its being a second motion for reconsideration
is the fact that the Motion for Reconsideration raises issues entirely
identical to those the petitioners already raised in their Ad Cautelam
Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 15 February 2011). The
following tabulation demonstrates the sameness of issues between the motions,
to wit:
|
Motion for
Reconsideration of |
Ad Cautelam
Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated |
|
|
|
|
I. With due respect, neither the
Rules of Court nor jurisprudence allows the Honorable Court to take
cognizance of Respondent Municipalities multiple motions. By doing so, the Honorable Court
therefore acted contrary to the Rules of Court and its internal procedures. |
II. The Resolution Contravenes The 1997 Rules Of Civil Procedure And Relevant Supreme Court Issuances. |
|
|
|
|
II. Contrary to the ruling of the Honorable Court in the Assailed Resolution, the controversy involving the Sixteen (16) Cityhood laws had long been resolved with finality; thus, the principles of immutability of judgment and res judicata are applicable and operate to deprive the Honorable Court of jurisdiction. |
I. The Honorable Court Has No
Jurisdiction To Promulgate The Resolution Of 15 February 2011, Because There
is No Longer Any Actual Case Or Controversy To Settle. III. The Resolution Undermines The Judicial System In Its Disregard Of The Principles Of Res Judicata And The Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgments. |
|
|
|
|
III. Contrary to the Assailed Resolution of the Honorable Court, the sixteen (16) Cityhood laws neither repealed nor amended the Local Government Code. The Honorable Court committed an error when it failed to rule in the Assailed Resolution that the Sixteen (16) Cityhood Laws violated Article X, Sections 6 and 10 of the Constitution. |
IV. The Resolution Erroneously
Ruled That The Sixteen (16) Cityhood Bills Do Not Violate Article X,
Sections 6 and 10 Of The 1987 Constitution. V. The Sixteen (16) Cityhood Laws Violate The Equal Protection Clause Of The Constitution And The Right Of Local Government Units To A Just Share In The National Taxes. |
|
IV. With due respect, the constitutionality of R.A. 9009 is not an issue in this case. It was error on the part of the Honorable Court to consider the law arbitrary. |
|
That
Issue No. IV (i.e., the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9009) appears in the Motion for
Reconsideration but is not
found in the Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated
15 February 2011) is of no consequence, for the constitutionality of R.A.
No. 9009 is neither relevant nor decisive in this case, the reference to said
legislative enactment being only for purposes of discussion.
The
Motion for Reconsideration,
being a second motion for reconsideration, cannot be entertained. As to that,
Section 2[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,[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.[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
Courts declaration.
In the Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.
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 Courts declaration even renders the
denial of the petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration more compelling. As the resolution of
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
Finally,
considering that the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration merely
rehashes the issues previously put forward, particularly in the Ad Cautelam
Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 15 February 2011), the Court, having already passed
upon such issues with finality, finds
no need to discuss the issues again to avoid repetition and redundancy.
Accordingly, the finality of the
resolutions upholding the constitutionality of the 16 Cityhood Laws now absolutely warrants the granting of respondents Motion for Entry of
Judgment.
WHEREFORE, the Court denies the
petitioners Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of the
Resolution of 12 April 2011 and
the attached Motion for Reconsideration of
the Resolution of 12 April 2011;
grants the respondents Motion for Entry of Judgment dated May 9, 2011; and
directs the Clerk of Court to forthwith issue the Entry of Judgment in this
case.
No further pleadings or submissions
by any party shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
|
See Dissenting Opinion ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice
|
I maintain my dissent ARTURO D.
BRION Associate
Justice
|
I maintain my vote
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice |
(no part) MARIANO C.
Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate
Justice
|
I join J. Carpio inhis dissent MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE
CATRAL Associate Justice |
See dissenting opinion. I join main dissent of J.
Carpio
MARIA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] The prayer for relief of the Motion for Reconsideration states:
WHEREFORE, Petitioners most respectfully
pray that the Resolution dated
[2] The dispositive portion of the resolution
of
WHEREFORE, the Ad Cautelam Motion
for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
[3] The dispositive portion of the resolution
of
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the
Resolution dated
SO ORDERED.
[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.
[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.
[6] Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, supra.
[7] Supra, note 2.
[8] The resolution of
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 the
xxx