April 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 156052 : April 28, 2009] SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO AND BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON VERSUS HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA. CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, MOVANTS INTERVENORS. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MOVANT-INTERVENOR. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 156052 : April 28, 2009]
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO AND BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON VERSUS HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA.
CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, MOVANTS INTERVENORS.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MOVANT-INTERVENOR.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated April 28, 2009
G.R. No. 156052 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO and BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON versus HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila.
CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION and PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Movants-Intervenors.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Movant-Intervenor.
In our decision dated March 7, 2007, we granted the instant petition for mandamus and directed the Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., as then mayor of the City of Manila, to immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027.[1] Subsequently, however, Chevron Philippines, Inc., Petron Corporation and Piilpinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (which maintain the so-called "Pandacan Terminals" in an area covered by Ordinance No. 8027) and the Department of Energy (DOE) moved to intervene in this case and sought reconsideration of the decision dated March 7, 2007.
We allowed the oil companies and the DOE to intervene and participate in this case and, after hearing the parties in oral argument, we denied their respective motions for reconsideration in a resolution dated February 13, 2008.[2]
Dissatisfied with the resolution dated February 13, 2008, the oil companies filed another motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 2008.[3]
We deny the motion.
The motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 2008 is a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading. Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court is clear and categorical:
This prohibition is justified by public policy which demands that judgments of courts must become final at some definitive date fixed by law[4]
Moreover, a perusal of the arguments raised by the oil companies in their second motion for reconsideration shows that either they are a mere rehash of the arguments raised in the first motion for reconsideration or the basic issues have already been passed upon by the Court in the resolution dated February 13, 2008.
The Court also takes judicial cognizance of the fact that the oil companies have begun to comply with the orderly phase-out of the oil depots from Pandacan with the submission of the requisite plans and reports to the Regional
Trial Court of Manila.
WHEREFORE, the second motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 2008 of the oil companies is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY.
No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case
Let an entry of judgment be made in due course.
G.R. No. 156052 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO and BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON versus HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila.
CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON CORPORATION and PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Movants-Intervenors.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Movant-Intervenor.
In our decision dated March 7, 2007, we granted the instant petition for mandamus and directed the Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., as then mayor of the City of Manila, to immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027.[1] Subsequently, however, Chevron Philippines, Inc., Petron Corporation and Piilpinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (which maintain the so-called "Pandacan Terminals" in an area covered by Ordinance No. 8027) and the Department of Energy (DOE) moved to intervene in this case and sought reconsideration of the decision dated March 7, 2007.
We allowed the oil companies and the DOE to intervene and participate in this case and, after hearing the parties in oral argument, we denied their respective motions for reconsideration in a resolution dated February 13, 2008.[2]
Dissatisfied with the resolution dated February 13, 2008, the oil companies filed another motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 2008.[3]
We deny the motion.
The motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 2008 is a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading. Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court is clear and categorical:
SEC. 2. Second motion for reconsideration. - No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
This prohibition is justified by public policy which demands that judgments of courts must become final at some definitive date fixed by law[4]
Moreover, a perusal of the arguments raised by the oil companies in their second motion for reconsideration shows that either they are a mere rehash of the arguments raised in the first motion for reconsideration or the basic issues have already been passed upon by the Court in the resolution dated February 13, 2008.
The Court also takes judicial cognizance of the fact that the oil companies have begun to comply with the orderly phase-out of the oil depots from Pandacan with the submission of the requisite plans and reports to the Regional
Trial Court of Manila.
WHEREFORE, the second motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 2008 of the oil companies is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY.
No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case
Let an entry of judgment be made in due course.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd)MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd)MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Entitled "Ordinance Reclassifying the Land Use of [Those] Portions of Land Bounded by the Pasig River in the North[,] PNR Railroad Track in the East, Beata St. in the South, Palumpong St.in the Southwest and Estero de Pandacan in the West, PNR Railroad in the Northwest Area. Estero of Pandacan in the Northeast, Pasig River in the Southeast and Dr. M. L. Carreon in the Southwest; the Area of Punta, Sta. Ana Bounded by the Pasig River. Marcelino Obrero St.[.] Mayo 28 St. and the F. Manalo Street from Industrial II to Commercial I."
[2] The resolution dated February 13, 2008 also ordered the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 39 to dismiss the consolidated Civil Case Nos. 03-106377 and 03-106380.
[3] The motion was entitled "Motion for Leave to File and Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration and to Refer the Motion for Reconsideration En Consulta to the [Supreme] Court En Banc for Resolution." In a resolution dated April 21, 2009, this case was referred by the First Division (where it was originally assigned) to the banc and the banc accepted it on April 28. 2009
[4] Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 163. 173 (1997).
