Case Digest (G.R. No. 176951) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 176951 et al., June 28, 2011), the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), represented by its National President Jerry P. Treaas, together with the City of Calbayog (Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento) and Jerry P. Treaas in his personal capacity, filed a petition to reconsider the Supreme Court’s Resolution of April 12, 2011. That resolution had denied with finality their Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated February 15, 2011, which had upheld the constitutionality of sixteen cityhood laws challenged before the Court. The petitioners subsequently filed on April 29, 2011 a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration, attaching a second Motion for Reconsideration of the April 12, 2011 resolution. In response, the respondents—including the Commission on Elections and various municipalities—filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment on May 9, 2011, seeking to have the case declared fi Case Digest (G.R. No. 176951) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners
- League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), represented by National President Jerry P. Treaas
- City of Calbayog, represented by Mayor Mel Senen S. Sarmiento
- Jerry P. Treaas, in his personal capacity as taxpayer
- Respondents
- Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
- Various municipalities formerly seeking conversion into cities (Baybay, Bogo, Catbalogan, Tandág, Borongan, Tayabas, Lamitan, Tabuk, Bayugan, Batac, Mati, Guihulngan, Cabadbaran, Carcar, El Salvador, Naga)
- Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
- Subject Matter
- Constitutionality of sixteen (16) Cityhood Laws (R.A. Nos. 9389, 9390, 9391, 9392, 9393, 9394, 9398, 9404, 9405, 9407, 9408, 9409, 9434, 9435, 9436, 9491)
- Alleged violation of Article X, Sections 6 and 10 (immutability of judgment, res judicata, Local Government Code requirements, equal protection and just share in national taxes)
- Procedural History
- Decision dated 15 February 2011
- SC Division upheld the constitutionality of the sixteen Cityhood Laws
- Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration (filed 8 March 2011)
- Denied by Resolution dated 12 April 2011, declared final
- Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration (dated 29 April 2011)
- Attached “second” Motion for Reconsideration of the 12 April 2011 Resolution
- Respondents’ Motion for Entry of Judgment (dated 9 May 2011)
Issues:
- Procedural Validity
- Whether the April 29 2011 Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited second motion under Rule 51, Section 2 of the Rules of Court and the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules.
- Identity of Issues
- Whether the new Motion for Reconsideration presents issues materially different from those already resolved in the Ad Cautelam motion.
- Finality of Ruling
- Whether the Resolution of 12 April 2011 became final upon the Court’s express declaration.
- Appropriate Relief
- Whether to deny the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
- Whether to grant the respondents’ Motion for Entry of Judgment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)