G.R. No. 109645 & 112564. March 4, 1996.
ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, petitioner, vs. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO and DOLORES V. MOLINA, respondents. DOLORES V. MOLINA, petitioner, vs. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, QUEZON CITY, BR. 105, and MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court had rendered a Decision on July 25, 1994, which became final and executory after it denied with finality Dolores V. Molina’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 23, 1995. In a subsequent Resolution dated March 1, 1995, the Court reiterated this denial and explicitly ordered that “no further pleadings, motions or papers shall be filed,” except on a specific, unrelated issue. The Court later declared the cases closed and terminated in its July 24, 1995 Resolution.
Despite these clear and final orders, Molina filed several subsequent motions: a second motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 1995; a motion to refer the cases to the Court En Banc dated April 5, 1995; a consolidated motion for reconsideration dated July 25, 1995; and another motion for reconsideration dated August 21, 1995. Manila Banking Corporation (Manilabank) moved to cite Molina in contempt for these filings, arguing they were patently unmeritorious and filed manifestly for delay, in defiance of the Court’s directives.

ISSUE

Whether Dolores V. Molina is guilty of contempt of court for willfully disregarding the Supreme Court’s final Resolutions by persistently filing prohibited pleadings.

RULING

Yes, Molina is guilty of contempt. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that litigation must end. The Court’s July 25, 1994 Decision had attained finality. A second motion for reconsideration is generally prohibited under the rules, and the Court’s subsequent Resolutions expressly barred any further pleadings. Molina’s actions constituted an obstinate and importunate reiteration of arguments already conclusively resolved.
The Court explained that the acceptability of a second motion for reconsideration is not contingent on the averment of “new” grounds, as this would allow indefinite staving off of finality through ingenious reformulations of arguments. The rules require a party to set forth all grounds in an initial motion; those not included are deemed waived. Molina’s persistence, after being accorded more than ample opportunity to be heard, was a deliberate defiance of the Court’s authority. This defiance obstructs the administration of justice by engaging the Court in interminable squabbling over settled matters, which is the essence of contumacious conduct. Accordingly, Molina was found guilty of contempt and fined.