GR 168122; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168122 , October 4, 2007
Romonafe Corporation vs. National Power Corporation
FACTS
This case originated from a dispute over the just compensation for a parcel of land owned by Romonafe Corporation and expropriated by the National Power Corporation (NPC). The Supreme Court had already rendered a Decision on January 30, 2007, which, among other rulings, affirmed the valuation of the property based on a 1995 assessment. Following this Decision, Romonafe filed a motion for reconsideration.
The Court subsequently issued a Resolution dated April 16, 2007, which denied Romonafe’s initial motion for reconsideration. Unsatisfied, Romonafe filed another pleading, which it styled as a “Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution dated April 16, 2007 with Motion for Leave to File Instant Motion.” In this subsequent motion, Romonafe also sought a clarification regarding the specific area of its property to which the Court’s affirmed 1995 assessment applied.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court should entertain Romonafe’s latest motion. A secondary issue involves the clarification sought by Romonafe regarding the land area covered by the valuation.
RULING
The Court denied Romonafe’s motion. The legal logic is straightforward and procedural. The filing of a motion for reconsideration of the April 16, 2007 Resolution, which itself denied a first motion for reconsideration of the January 30, 2007 Decision, constitutes a second motion for reconsideration. Under the prevailing rules of procedure, a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution is a prohibited pleading. The Court’s rules explicitly disallow such successive motions to ensure finality of judgments and prevent endless litigation. Therefore, the Court had no discretion to entertain the substantive arguments in Romonafe’s latest filing, as it was procedurally infirm from the outset.
However, the Court granted the ancillary request for clarification. It clarified that the 1995 assessment affirmed in its January 30, 2007 Decision applied specifically to 48,103.12 square meters of Romonafe’s property, which was the parcel subject of the original expropriation case (Civil Case No. 1140-95). The Court amended the pertinent portion of its earlier Decision to reflect this precise area, thereby removing any ambiguity on the matter without revisiting the merits of the already final valuation ruling.