c













Posted: June 10, 2009

By Jose Midas P. Marquez

The Supreme Court, in an J
  Resolution, has ³finally closed and terminated´ the
consolidated cases which declared the 16 Cityhood Laws unconstitutional.

In a six-page extended Resolution dated 2 June 2009, High Court held that ³there can be no
doubt of the intention of this Court to consider (these cases) finally closed and terminated. Basic
is the rule in our judicial system that litigations must end and terminated at some point.´

On 18 November 2008 the High Court, by a vote of 6-5, nullified the 16 Cityhood Laws. On 13
January 2009, it denied with finality the motion for reconsideration, there being no substantial
arguments raised.

On 31 March 2009, acting on the 19 January 2009 letter of former Solicitor General Estelito P.
Mendoza which urged the Members of Court who inhibited to participate, ³Y
Y
Y


Y
Y
 


Y
and resolved by a vote of 7-5 to DENY the Motion for
Reconsideration with finality for lack of merit, the basic issues raised therein having been passed
upon already.´ The Court also decreed that ³no further pleadings shall be entertained.´

However, later, the Court allowed the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. On 28 April
2009, by a vote of 6-6, the Court denied the second Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit,
and also ³since a majority of the Court did not vote to grant it.´ On 5 May 2009, respondents¶
counsel received a copy of the 28 April 2009 Resolution.

The Court reiterated that ³as a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited
pleading,³ but it may be allowed ³when a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for
reconsideration is granted by the Court.´ Generally, a decision becomes final 15 days from
receipt by the parties of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. However, when a
second motion for reconsideration is considered and denied by the Court, such as in this case, the
decision becomes final 15 days from receipt by the parties of the denial of the second motion for
reconsideration.

Consequently, on 21 May 2009, 15 days after 5 May 2009 (the date of receipt by respondents of
the denial of the second motion for reconsideration), the 18 November 2008 Decision of the
Court became final and executory, and was forthwith recorded in the Book of Entries of
Judgments. The Court thus resolved to expunge the subsequent pleadings on the merits of the
case, and merely noted the 28 May 2009 letter-request of former Solicitor-General Mendoza to
recall the entry of judgment in this case. (Min. Res, GR Nos. 176951, 17749, and 178056,
ë 



















J 

 June 2, 2009)