Case Summary (G.R. No. 176951)
Second Motion for Reconsideration as Prohibited Pleading
The April 29, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration re-argued issues identical to those in the Ad Cautelam motion. Under Rule 51, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, “No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.” The petitioners’ filing constituted a second motion for reconsideration without prior leave.
Reinforcement by Supreme Court Internal Rules
Section 3, Rule 15 of the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules re-emphasizes that second motions for reconsideration are categorically barred. An exception exists only in the “higher interest of justice” and must be granted by the Court en banc upon a two-thirds vote of its membership—circumstances not shown here.
Finality of the April 12, 2011 Resolution
The April 12 resolution expressly declared the Ad Cautelam motion denied “with finality,” rendering any further motion for reconsideration impermissible. As the ruling sought to be reconsidered had become final by the Court’s own declaration, the bar against second motions fully applies.
Disposition of Motions
- The Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration and the attached Motion for Reconsideration are DENIED.
- The respondents’ Motion for Entry of Judgment is GRANTED.
- The Clerk of Court is directed to issue the Entr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 176951)
Procedural History
- This matter consolidates three petitions under G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499, and 178056, all assailing the constitutionality and effects of sixteen enacted Cityhood Laws.
- Petitioners are the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP), the City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treaas in his personal capacity as taxpayer.
- Respondents include the Commission on Elections, various municipalities across several provinces, and the Department of Budget and Management.
- On 15 February 2011, the Court’s decision declared the sixteen Cityhood Laws constitutional.
- Petitioners filed an Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration of the 15 February 2011 Decision on 8 March 2011, which was denied by Resolution of 12 April 2011.
- On 29 April 2011, petitioners sought leave to file a second Motion for Reconsideration of the 12 April 2011 Resolution.
- Respondents moved for the Entry of Judgment on 9 May 2011, requesting immediate finality.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
- Labeled as a “Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of 12 April 2011,” it attaches a Motion for Reconsideration dated 29 April 2011.
- Seeks to have the 12 April 2011 Resolution—denying the prior Ad Cautelam motion—reconsidered, reversed, or set aside.
- Raises issues already litigated in the Ad Cautelam motion, including jurisdictional, procedural, and constitutional arguments concerning the Cityhood Laws.
Respondent’s Motion for Entry of Judgment
- Filed on 9 May 2011 following denial of the Ad Cautelam motion.
- Prays for immediate issuance of the Entry of Judgment, thereby rendering the Court’s rulings final and precluding further pleadings.
Issues Raised by Petitioners’ Second Motion for Reconsideration
- Alleged contravention of the Rules of Court and internal procedures by the Supreme Court in taking cognizance of multiple motions.
- Claim that the controversy over the sixteen Cityhood Laws had been finally resolved, invoking res judicata and immutability of judgment.
- Assertion that the Court erred in ruling that the Cityhood Laws did not amend or repeal the Local Government Code and did not violate Article X, Sections 6 and 1