G.R. No. 135244, April 15, 1999
Yale Land Development Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Pedro Caragao, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a petition for review on certiorari filed by Yale Land Development Corporation, which was denied due course by the Second Division of the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated October 21, 1998. The petitioner filed a first motion for reconsideration, which was denied with finality by the First Division in a Resolution dated January 18, 1999. Subsequently, the petitioner filed several motions before the First Division: a motion to set aside the January 18, 1999 Resolution; a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, together with the attached second motion; and a motion to refer the case to the Court En Banc.
The First Division deliberated on these motions. Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago abstained, as she had not participated in any prior deliberations on the case since her recent assumption to duty. The Division voted on the motions, resulting in a split decision on the central issue regarding the second motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration should be admitted and granted, and whether the case should be referred to the Court En Banc.

RULING

The Court, through a per curiam Resolution, denied the motion to refer the case to the Court En Banc. This denial was decided by a vote of four, with one abstention, rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the First Division was not the proper division to act on the first motion for reconsideration.
On the central issue of admitting and granting the second motion for reconsideration, the Division reached an even vote of 2-2, with one abstention. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Justice Jose A.R. Melo voted to deny the motion to set aside the January 18, 1999 Resolution, deny the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, and to simply note without action the second motion itself. Justices Santiago M. Kapunan and Bernardo P. Pardo voted to grant leave to file the second motion, admit and grant it, and consolidate the case with G.R. No. 135192.
In accordance with the Supreme Court En Banc’s administrative Resolution No. 99-1-09-SC dated January 26, 1999, which governs deadlocked votes, the motions were deemed denied. This procedural rule resolves tie votes by affirming the prior action of the Court, thereby resulting in the affirmation of the Resolution dated January 18, 1999, which had denied the first motion for reconsideration with finality. The legal logic rests on the finality of judgments and the strict application of procedural rules governing motions for reconsideration, emphasizing that a second motion is generally a prohibited pleading absent exceptional circumstances, and that an even division necessitates adherence to the Court’s standing administrative resolution to break the tie.