The period of litigation: Immutability of judgment is in the higher interest of justice

• Main Author: Ang, Victor Reynaldo C.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2013
• Subjects: Judgments; Judicial process—Philippines; Administrative remedies—Philippines; Litigation
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/6928
• Institution: De La Salle University

Rule 37 Sec. 5 Paragraph 2 of the 1997 Rules of Court expressly provides that no party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order. Also, Rule 52 Section 2 further provides that no second motion for reconsideration by the same party of a judgment or final resolution shall be entertained. However in 2010, the Supreme Court promulgated A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC1 or the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court granting itself the discretion to entertain a second motion for reconsideration in the higher interest of justice. In effect, it qualifies what was deemed to be a prohibited pleading in the 1997 Rules of Court. Using jurisprudence, textbooks and journals found in the world wide web, the thesis will basically answer the question as to whether the internal rules promulgated by the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and contrary to the principle of immutability of judgment. The proponent’s query is that, in light of this development, when will the case finally end? Litigation must end at some point and with the internal rules, the termination of a case becomes indefinite when after the resolution of a first motion for reconsideration, the 1 ANNEX A 5 Court is left with the discretion to entertain a second motion for reconsideration. It will answer whether the granting of a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration defeat the purpose of the initial motion for reconsideration and a waste of the Court and the parties’ time because the court has already decided on the issues raised in such motion. The thesis will also discuss whether the power of the Supreme Court includes the right to flipflop a final and executory decision by using their subjective power to determine what the higher interest of justice is as a ground for the allowance of a second motion for reconsideration. The proponent believes that there should be competent standards for the granting of a second motion for reconsideration and a strict application of the guidelines to avoid what happened in the controversial cases of Pioneer Insurance, Philippine Air Lines, the League of Cities and other similar cases and eliminate any chance of it repeating itself.