Second motion for reconsideration

From an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), petitioner Alfredo F. Laya Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.

Subsequently, he filed a petition for review on certiorari with the First Division of the Supreme Court which was also denied. He filed a motion for reconsideration and sought the referral of his petition to the Court En Banc. The Supreme Court (First Division) denied his motion for reconsideration as well as his prayer to refer the case to the Court En Banc. The entry of judgment was issued on Dec. 6, 2013.

The petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration where he expounded on the issues he was raising in the first motion for reconsideration.

Can the second motion for reconsideration be still entertained?

Ruling: Yes.

In light of pertinent laws and relevant jurisprudence, the Court has ascertained, after going over the parties’ arguments and the records of the case, that the reconsideration of the Court’s resolutions promulgated on April 8, 2013 and Aug. 28, 2013, and the lifting of the entry of judgment made herein are in order; and that the appeal by the petitioner should be given due course. xxx

In a line of cases, the Court has then entertained and granted second motions for reconsideration “in the higher interest of substantial justice,” as allowed under the Internal Rules when the assailed decision is “legally erroneous,” “patently unjust” and “potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties.”

In Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET, Inc.), we also explained that a second motion for reconsideration may be allowed in instances of “extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have been obtained.”

In Apo Fruits Corp. v. Land Bank of the Philippines, we allowed a second motion for reconsideration as the issue involved therein was a matter of public interest, as it pertained to the proper application of a basic constitutionally guaranteed right in the government’s implementation of its agrarian reform program.

In San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC, the Court set aside the decisions of the LA and the NLRC that favored claimants-security guards upon the Court’s review of San Miguel Corp.’s second motion for reconsideration. In Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, et al., the Court en banc reversed on a third motion for reconsideration the ruling of the Court’s Division on therein private respondents’ claim for wages and monetary benefits.

It is also recognized that in some instances, the prudent action towards a just resolution of a case is for the Court to suspend rules of procedure, for “the power of this Court to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operations whenever the purposes of justice require it, cannot be questioned.”

In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, the Court, thus, explained: The rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Even the Rules of Court envision this liberality. This power to suspend or even disregard the rules can be so pervasive and encompassing so as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final, as we are now compelled to do in this case x x x. (Alfredo F. Laya, Jr. vs. CA, et.al., G.R. No. 205813, January 10, 2018).

It is also recognized that in some instances, the prudent action towards a just resolution of a case is for the Court to suspend rules of procedure.