ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. NO. 122472. July 17, 2006]
APEX MINING CO., INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COURT OF APPEALS
Special Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 17, 2006 .
G.R. NO. 122472 (APEX Mining Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Court of Appeals)
In our Resolution of February 15, 2006, [1] cralaw we denied with finality petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration/ with its Supplement dated December 5, 2005, of our Decision dated October 20, 2005 which denied the petition for review on certiorari. Presently, petitioner is again with us, this time thru the instant Second Motion for Reconsideration, [2] cralaw the accompanying Motion for Leave to Admit [3] cralaw having been granted per Resolution of April 3, 2006, [4] cralaw and to which the Office of the Solicitor General filed its comment. [5] cralaw
We resolve to DENY, as we hereby deny with finality, the subject Second Motion for Reconsideration.
Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court is explicit that no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. Verily, such motion is a prohibited pleading, [6] cralaw hence, shall not be allowed, except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have first been obtained. [7] cralaw
A grant of a motion for leave to admit a second motion for reconsideration does not necessarily imply that the grounds relied upon in such second motion partake of an extraordinary persuasive reason to except such motion from the one-motion rule. And the fact that the Court ignored the allegations in the supplement to the first motion which, to petitioner, are valid and compelling reasons to justify reconsideration, and then proceeded to declare the same motion to be bereft of merit would not constitute a ground for, or lend exceptional dimension to the, second motion for reconsideration.
It may be that the Court "noted without action" the supplement to the first motion for reconsideration. Any suggestion, however, that the Court, in disposing of said motion, did not take stock of or consider the averments in the supplement is unacceptable.
Needless to stress, allowing reconsideration does not peremptorily impose on the Court the obligation to deal and pass upon individually and specifically on all grounds relied upon therefor, for this exercise could be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the final judgment or order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant. [8] cralaw As a matter of long practice, it would suffice to deal generally and summarily with the motion for reconsideration, and merely state a ground for its denial, [9] cralaw as what we did in our Resolution of February 15, 2006.
Thus, the denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, or, with like effect, as not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification of the judgment or final order.
Given the above perspective, the insistent reason petitioner cited to support its plea for reconsideration, i.e., suspension of the procedural rules, is undeserving of merit, the same having been considered in the course of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration.
Lastly, it may not be amiss to point out that the denial of petitioner's first motion for reconsideration was "with finality". Although the presence or absence of the term "with finality" does not in any way suggest uncertainty or indecisiveness on the part of the Court regarding its denial of reconsideration or expectation of another reconsideration, nonetheless the modifier serves to emphasize the import and effect of the denial, to wit: that the Court will entertain and consider no further arguments or submissions respecting the correctness of its final ruling; that, in its view, nothing more is left to be discussed, clarified or done in the case, all issues raised having been passed upon and definitely resolved, and any other which could have been raised, but were not, having been waived and no longer available as ground for a second motion. [10] cralaw Simply stated, a denial with finality stresses that the case is deemed closed.
WHEREFORE, the instant Second Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with finality. Furthermore, no further pleadings, motions or papers shall be filed in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 261.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 263-273.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 253-258.
[4] cralaw Rollo, p. 276.
[5] cralaw Rollo, pp. 277-278.
[6] cralaw Hongria vs. Hongria-Juarde, G.R. No. 155086, March 15, 2004 425 SCRA 504, 507.
[7] cralaw Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 109645, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 234, 240 cited in Manila Electric Co. vs. Barlis, G.R. No. 114231, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 11, 28.
[8] cralaw Ortigas and Co. Ltd. Partnership vs. Velasco G.R. No. 109645, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 234, 242.
[9] cralaw Section 14, Art. VIII, Constitution.
[10] cralaw Ortigas & Co., Ltd. vs. Velasco, supra at pp. 243-244.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
