G.R. No. 164195; April 5, 2011
APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC., Petitioners, vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

This case involves a second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) concerning the payment of just compensation and interest for expropriated agricultural land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. The original Decision of the Third Division of the Supreme Court dated February 6, 2007, affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) determination of just compensation and awarded 12% per annum interest on the balance. Upon motions for reconsideration, the Third Division, in a Resolution dated December 19, 2007, deleted the 12% interest. After the denial of subsequent motions and an entry of judgment on May 16, 2008, petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was referred to the Court En Banc. The Court En Banc initially denied this motion on December 4, 2009. Petitioners filed another motion for reconsideration, which the Court En Banc granted in a Resolution dated October 12, 2010, reinstating the 12% interest award by a vote of 8 to 4. The Court subsequently denied LBP’s motion for reconsideration on November 23, 2010. LBP then filed the instant second motion for reconsideration, arguing against the applicability of the “transcendental importance” test, the alleged violation of the doctrine of immutability of final judgment, the abrogation of a vested right of the government, and the proper interest rate. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also moved to intervene on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. During deliberations, Justice Roberto A. Abad raised an objection, contending that the October 12, 2010 Resolution was null and void because the Court allegedly violated Section 3, Rule 15 of its Internal Rules by not first voting on whether to entertain the underlying motion (a third motion for reconsideration) before voting on its merits.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court properly entertained and resolved the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (leading to the October 12, 2010 Resolution) in light of the rules governing second motions for reconsideration, specifically Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the Court should grant LBP’s second motion for reconsideration on the merits.

RULING

1. On the Procedural Issue (Justice Abad’s Observation): The Court rejected Justice Abad’s observation and found no violation of its Internal Rules. The Court held that while Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules requires a two-thirds vote of the actual membership to grant an exception to entertain a second motion for reconsideration “in the higher interest of justice,” the Court’s action on October 12, 2010, wherein twelve (12) Members participated and voted (8 for, 4 against) on the merits of the petitioners’ motion, constituted substantial compliance. The Court reasoned that the participation of twelve Members demonstrated the Court’s collective decision to entertain the motion, albeit not through an express separate vote. Furthermore, the ruling complied with the constitutional requirement under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that decisions of the Court En Banc be made with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who deliberated and voted. The Court then voted on whether to entertain LBP’s instant second motion for reconsideration, resulting in a 9 to 2 vote against entertaining it, thereby upholding the finality of its November 23, 2010 Resolution.
2. On the Merits of LBP’s Second Motion for Reconsideration: The Court denied LBP’s second motion for reconsideration for being a prohibited motion. The Court emphasized the basic rule under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, which states that “No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.” While Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules allows an exception for “higher interest of justice” upon a two-thirds vote, the Court had already declined to entertain LBP’s motion by a vote of 9 to 2. The Court found no compelling reason to revisit its substantial rulings on the issues of transcendental importance, immutability of judgment, constitutional context of just compensation, and the interest rate, which had been “more than amply addressed” in previous resolutions. The Court deemed the October 12, 2010 and November 23, 2010 Resolutions final and executory.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Court DENIED the Land Bank of the Philippines’ second motion for reconsideration and the Office of the Solicitor General’s motion for intervention. The Court’s Resolutions dated October 12, 2010 and November 23, 2010 were declared FINAL. No further pleadings were to be entertained.