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

FACTS

Petitioner Yale Land Development Corporation filed a motion to refer its case to the Court En Banc. The motion’s premise was that its motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 21, 1998 Resolution (which denied its petition outright) should have been acted upon by the Members of the former Second Division, constituted as a Special Division. Petitioner argued this was required under SC Administrative Resolution No. 98-12-05-SC, which governs the resolution of motions for reconsideration following a court reorganization. The resolution stipulates that motions for reconsideration of decisions or signed resolutions from a previous Division must be resolved by a Special Division composed of the Chairman and Members of that previous Division.
Petitioner contended that the October 21, 1998 Resolution, despite being unsigned, should be considered a “decision” or at least a “signed resolution” for the purpose of this rule because it contained a distinct statement of facts and law. Following the denial of its first motion for reconsideration with finality on January 18, 1999, petitioner also sought leave to file a second motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the October 21, 1998 Resolution is a “decision” or “signed resolution” requiring a Special Division to resolve a motion for reconsideration, and whether a second motion for reconsideration should be allowed.

RULING

The Court, through the Separate Opinion of Justice Melo, voted to deny both motions. On the first issue, the October 21, 1998 Resolution is an extended but unsigned minute resolution, not a decision or a signed resolution. The inclusion of a statement of facts and law does not convert it into a signed resolution, as the Court retains ample discretion to formulate such minute resolutions to ensure the prompt dispatch of cases. Minute resolutions, even extended ones, are promulgated through the Clerk of Court and do not require the signatures of the Justices or the Chief Justice’s certification. Consequently, under the applicable rule, motions for reconsideration of minute resolutions from a member’s previous division are to be resolved by his or her new division—in this case, the First Division. Therefore, no referral to a Special Division or the En Banc was warranted.
On the second issue, a second motion for reconsideration is generally prohibited. The denial of the first motion for reconsideration “with finality” signifies that the grounds raised were found meritless and that any other unraised grounds are deemed waived. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly outlaw second motions for reconsideration. Petitioner’s second motion was a mere re-filing of the first and presented no extraordinary persuasive reasons to justify an exception. Public policy demands that judgments become final at a definite point to ensure an end to litigation. The proper course was to deny the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and to note the attached motion without action.