ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140130.October 26, 1999]

MIRANDA vs. SUPREME COURT et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court OCT 26, 1999.

G.R. No. 140130(Joel G. Miranda vs. Supreme Court, En Banc, The Executive Secretary and the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government.)

Petitioner has impleaded as respondents in the instant petition the Supreme Court En Banc, the Executive Secretary, and the Secretary of Interior and Local Government. He seeks injunction against the implementation of the final and executory decision dated July 28, 1998 and the resolution of September 28, 1999 denying reconsideration in G.R. No. 136351 entitled "Joel G. Miranda vs. Antonio Abaya and the Commission and the Commission of Elections."

The issue submitted before us may be stated as follows: Can the Supreme Court be sued before itself, in the guise of seeking to declare its judgments, resolutions, or orders unconstitutional?

We answer in the negative.

Initially, it is to be noted that the petition lacks the required explanation why service was effected by mail. This lapse alone is sufficient cause for the outright dismissal of the petition.

But over and above this technical flaw are the following considerations which warrant dismissal of the petition.

1. The remedy sought by petitioner is not sanctioned by the Rules.

All incidents relating to a case submitted before the Court must be threshed out in the same case, and not in an independent original action. Filing a separate action is tantamount to forum shopping. In fact, petitioner may even be held liable for his false certification of non-forum shopping (pages 9-10 of the petition) and the petition upon premise, may be forthwith dismissed.

2. Then too, other than the annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions (of courts below the Court of Appeals only) under Rule 47 of the rules of Court, a final and executory judgment can, generally, not be questioned at anytime and before any forum after attaining such finality. Final judgments must be enforced, they are no longer open to question. "Finality of decision of courts is not dependent upon their correctness, but upon the expiration of the period fixed by the rules therefore" (Feria vs. Suva, 92 Phil. 963 [1953]). "The very purpose for which the courts are organized is to put an end to controversy, to decide the questions submitted by the litigants, and to determine the respective rights of the parties. With full knowledge that courts are not infallible, the litigants submit their respective claims for judgment, and they have a right at some time or the other to have final judgment on which they can rely as a final disposition of the issues submitted, and know that there is an end to the litigation." (Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 295 [1976]). An original action such as the present petition is nowhere to be found among the remedies available to petitioner as a losing party in G.R. No. 136351.

3. The instant original petition questioning this Court's final and executory decision G.R. No. 136351 is an attempt to circumvent the proscription against a second motion for reconsideration. Section 2, Rule 56 makes Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court applicable to cases filed before the Supreme Court. Thus,

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

The prohibition against the filing of a second motion for reconsideration is justified by public policy which demands that at the, risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts must become final at some definitive date fixed by law (Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 187 [1997]).

4. Injunction cannot be issued by this Court against itself. It would be the height of absurdity to expect this Court, or any court for that matter, to issue a provisional or preliminary remedy against itself. The Court is asked to stand as the judge and the respondent at one and the same instance. Surely, no one can be a judge in its own acts without being charged with incompetence, bias, and partiality. Insisting on this would result in the violation of the very fundamentalprinciples of judicial due process of law. Petitions such as this must never be allowed to prosper.

In point of fact, the only complaint or grumble of petitioner is that his motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 136351 was denied in a minute resolution. If only to write finis to this matter, it must be said that this Court has time and again upheld the constitutionality of resolutions denying motions for reconsideration on the ground that basic issues have already been passed upon by the Court and that no substantial arguments were presented to warrant a reversal of the decision. Petitioner himself in Paragraph 22 of his petition says that he is aware of such principle. Clearly, the instant petition is nothing but an attempt to delay execution of our judgment in G.R. No. 136351.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Bellosillo, Puno, Quisumbing, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., are abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE