Title
Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. L-29352
Decision Date
Feb 19, 1986
Central Bank's third motion for reconsideration denied; Court upheld finality of 1982 Resolution, barring further clarification or reconsideration.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29352)

Key Dates

The relevant decision in this case was rendered on February 19, 1986. Prior resolutions referenced include those from October 19, 1982, July 22, 1985, and January 21, 1986, which laid the groundwork for the subsequent motions filed.

Applicable Law

The Constitution applicable to this case is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, given that the decision was made in 1986.

Court's Ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration

The Supreme Court resolved to deny the Central Bank of the Philippines’ Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Attached Motion for Clarificatory Ruling and/or Third Motion for Reconsideration. The Court clarified that third motions for reconsideration are not permitted under the applicable procedural rules and that there were no points raised that warranted clarification regarding the resolutions dated October 19, 1982, July 22, 1985, and January 21, 1986. Furthermore, the entry of judgment in connection with the resolution from October 19, 1982, had been executed on January 30, 1986.

Background of Previous Resolutions

The Court noted that the resolution from October 19, 1982, had received approval from the full Court at that time, consisting of fourteen justices, six of whom had since retired. The subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by the Central Bank were denied due to insufficient votes, as illustrated by the resolutions from July 22, 1985, and January 21, 1986.

Dissenting Opinion

Chief Justice Aquino dissented from the majority decision, advocating for the acceptance of the Central Bank's third motion for reconsideration. He referenced precedent established in the case of Vir-jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, where the Court entertained a third motion for reconsideration. Aquino's dissenting opinion highlights the legal precedent that allows for a third motion

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.