RELEVANT DOCTRINAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(i)     Indeed, a second MR as a rule, is generally a prohibited pleading.( Alcantara v. Ponce, 514 Phil. 222 (2005); Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Services, Inc., G.R. No. 169712, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 625, 628, citing Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, 324 Phil. 483, 489 (1996).

       The Court, however, does not discount instances when it may authorize the suspension of the rules of procedure so as to allow the resolution of a second motion for reconsideration, in cases of extraordinarily persuasive reasons (Alcantara v. Ponce, 514 Phil. 222 (2005); Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Services, Inc., G.R. No. 169712, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 625, 628, citing Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, 324 Phil. 483, 489 (1996). such as when the decision is a patent nullity.( Ramos vs. NLRC, 358 Phil. 705 (1998).

          
   Time and again, the Court has upheld the theory that the rules of procedure are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice.( Cando v. Olazo, G.R. No. 160741, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 741.) These are mere tools to expedite the decision or resolution of cases, hence, their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.( Peñosa v. Dona, G.R. No. 154018, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA 232.) (University of the East vs. University of the East Employees’ Association, G.R. No. 179593, September 14, 2011, MENDOZA, J.).


           (ii)      SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS PROHIBITED:  Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that “[n]o motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.  Moreover, Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court ⁽A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC.) decrees viz:

            SEC. 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 highest 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 Court's declaration.

                    “Well-settled is the rule that issues or grounds not raised below cannot be resolved on review by the Supreme Court, for to allow the parties to raise new issues is antithetical to the sporting idea of fair play, justice and due process.  Issues not raised during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and more especially on motion for reconsideration.  Litigation must end at some point; once the case is finally adjudged, the parties must learn to accept victory or defeat. Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, Incorporated, G.R. No. 174154, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 396, 399-400.) (JOEB M. ALIVIADO VS. PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS. INC. AND PROMM-GEM INC., G.R. NO. 160506, JUNE 6, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.:)  .:)

(iii) As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that: “No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.”  Thus, a decision becomes final and executory after 15 days from receipt of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration.

However, when a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the Court therefore allows the filing of the second motion for reconsideration.  In such a case, the second motion for reconsideration is no longer a prohibited pleading. (League of cities of the Philippines (LCP) et al, vs. Comelec et al., G.R. No. G.R. No. 176951, February 15, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.:)

(iv)  We deny Judge Dilag’s Motion for Leave to Admit Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and note without action the appended Second Motion for Reconsideration.  Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, on motions for reconsideration filed before the Court of Appeals, reads:

Sec. 2.         Second Motion for Reconsideration. — No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.

Taken in conjunction with Rule 56, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, the aforequoted provision is also applicable to original cases filed before the Supreme Court, which includes disciplinary proceedings against judges, such as the one at bar.  A second motion for reconsideration is, therefore, a prohibited pleading. 

The rule against entertaining a second motion for reconsideration is rooted in the basic tenet of immutability of judgments.  At some point a decision becomes final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must come to an end.

Indeed, there have been instances when we gave merit to second motions for reconsideration, but only when there are “extraordinary persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have been obtained.”( Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc., G.R. No. 169712, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 625, 628.) (Nida Verginesa Suarez vs. Judge Renato Dilag & Concepcion A. Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014, August 16, 2011, PER CURIAM)