♦ Decision, Bersamin, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
DISSENTING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I dissent.
This is an extraordinary case. Like in the Book of Revelation,1 it involves the miraculous resurrection of the dead: in this case, a dead case.
The ponencia recommends acting for respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (Philippine Airlines) on what amounts to a third motion for reconsideration. This is notwithstanding a unanimous decision of a Division in favor of petitioner, another unanimous decision of the same Division denying the motion for reconsideration and, again, another unanimous decision of another Division denying the second motion for reconsideration.
The reopening of a final case was done through a back door: an administrative matter docketed separately from this case.
The July 22, 2008 Decision2 and the October 2, 2009 Resolution3 denying Philippine Airlines’ Motion for Reconsideration attained finality on November 4, 2009. They may not be set aside, even by this Court sitting enbane. The July 22, 2008 Decision and the October 2, 2009 Resolution have become immutable, and all proceedings subsequent to their issuance-the grant of leave to file a Second Motion for Reconsideration to Philippine Airlines; the September 7, 2011 Resolution denying Philippine Airlines’ Second Motion for Reconsideration; the filing of mere letters questioning the internal procedures of this Court; the October 4, 2011 En Banc Resolution recalling the September 7, 2011 Resolution; and the March 13, 2012 Resolution of the Court En Banc confirming the recall of the September 7, 2011 Resolution, assuming jurisdiction over this case, and ordering the re-raffle to either Justices Peralta or Bersamin--did not prevent the judgment in this case from becoming final.
I
To recall, the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari questioning the legality of Philippine Airlines' retrenchment program implemented in 1998. The Petition was docketed as G.R. No. 178083.
In the Decision4 dated July 22, 2008, the Third Division of this Court granted FASAP's Petition and declared the retrenchment program of Philippine Airlines illegal. The dispositive portion of the July 22, 2008 Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87956 dated August 23, 2006, which affirmed the Decision of the NLRC setting aside the Labor Arbiter's findings of illegal retrenchment and its Resolution of May 29, 2007 denying the motion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered:
1. FINDING respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. GUILTY of illegal dismissal;
2. ORDERING Philippine Airlines, Inc. to reinstate the cabin crew personnel who were covered by the retrenchment and demotion scheme of June 15, 1998 made effective on July 15, 1998, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to pay them full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other monetary benefits computed from the time of their separation up to the time of their actual reinstatement, provided that with respect to those who had received their respective separation pay, the amounts of payments shall be deducted from their backwages. Where reinstatement is no longer feasible because the positions previously held no longer exist, respondent Corporation shall pay backwages plus, in lieu of reinstatement, separation pay equal to one (1) month pay for every year ofservice;
3. ORDERING Philippine Airlines, Inc. to pay attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.
Costs against respondent PAL.
SO ORDERED.5
The Decision, penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, was concurred in by all the Members of the Third Division: Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Minita Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo Nachura, and Teresita Leonardo-De Castro.
Philippine Airlines filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the July 22, 2008 Decision, which the Special Third Division denied with finality in the Resolution6 dated October 2, 2009:
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with FINALITY. The assailed Decision dated July 22, 2008 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is reduced to ₱2,000,000.00. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter solely for the purpose of computing the exact amount of the award pursuant to the guidelines herein stated.
No further pleadings will be entertained.
SO ORDERED.7
Justice Ynares-Santiago remained the ponente, and the October 2, 2009 Resolution was concurred in by Justices Chico-Nazario, Nachura, Peralta, and Bersamin. Justice Peralta replaced Justice Austria-Martinez who had already retired, and Justice Bersamin replaced Justice Leonardo-De Castro who had inhibited herself from participating in the deliberations of Philippine Airlines' Motion for Reconsideration.
Philippine Airlines, through counsel, received a copy of the October 2, 2009 Resolution on October 20, 2009.8 On November 3, 2009, Philippine Airlines filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration of the July 22, 2008 Decision, contending that the Court did not resolve all of the issues it raised in its First Motion for Reconsideration.
This Second Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality by the Second Division in the Resolution9 dated September 7, 2011:
To conclude, the rights and privileges that PAL unlawfully withheld from its employees have been in dispute for a decade and a half. Many of these employees have since then moved on, but the arbitrariness and illegality of PAL’s actions have yet to be rectified. This case has dragged on for so long and we are now more than duty-bound to finally put an end to the illegality that took place; otherwise, the illegally retrenched employees can rightfully claim that the Court has denied them justice.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to deny with finality respondent PAL’s second motion for reconsideration. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Costs against the respondents. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.10
A series of letters dated September 13, 16, 20, and 22, 2011 were then filed by Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, counsel for Philippine Airlines. The letters were all addressed to the Clerk of Court En Banc, not to the Justices of this Court, and questioned the transfer of the case among the Divisions. Instead of being filed under G.R. No. 178083, the letters were docketed as a separate administrative matter, A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC.
Still in A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC, the Court En Banc assumed jurisdiction over G.R. No. 178083 on October 4, 2011 and resolved11 to recall the September 7, 2011 Resolution of the Second Division. FASAP assailed this October 4, 2011 Resolution in a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing immutability of final judgments.
The Court En Banc then issued a Resolution12 dated March 13, 2012. It confirmed its recall of the Second Division's September 7, 2011 Resolution and re-raffled G.R. No. 178083 to a new Justice.
II
The present ponencia resolves Philippine Airlines’ Second Motion for Reconsideration of the July 22, 2008 Decision and FASAP’s Motion for Reconsideration of the March 13, 2012 Resolution confirming the recall of the September 7, 2011 Resolution that initially denied Philippine Airlines' Second Motion for Reconsideration. The present ponencia exists on thepremise that the grant of leave to file the Second Motion for Reconsideration and the recall of the September 7, 2011 Resolution prevented the July 22, 2008 Decision and the October 2, 2009 Resolution denying Philippine Airlines' First Motion for Reconsideration from becoming final and executory.13
This premise is false. The judgment in this case became final and executory as early as November 4, 2009.
"A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law,"14 "not by judicial declaration."15 A decision or resolution denying a motion for reconsideration of a decision becomes final and executory upon the lapse of 15 days16 from the party's receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution.17 After the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period, the finality of judgment becomes a matter of fact. 18
Therefore, no motion for reconsideration of a resolution denying a motion for reconsideration of a decision may be filed by the same party. Allowing second and subsequent motions for reconsideration of the same decision prevents the resolution of judicial controversies. Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court explicitly prohibits second motions for reconsideration:
Section 2. Second motion for reconsideration. - No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
The rationale of the prohibition is further explained in Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Velasco: 19
A second motion for reconsideration is forbidden except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons, and only upon express leave first obtained. The propriety or acceptability of such a second motion for reconsideration is not contingent upon the averment of "new" grounds to assail the judgment, i.e., grounds other than those theretofore presented and rejected. Otherwise, attainment of finality of a judgment might be staved off indefinitely, depending on the party's ingeniousness or cleverness in conceiving and formulating "additional flaws" or "newly discovered errors" therein, or thinking up some injury or prejudice to therights of the movant for reconsideration. "Piece-meal" impugnation of a judgment by successive motions for reconsideration is anathema, being precluded by the salutary axiom that a party seeking the setting aside of a judgment, act or proceeding must set out in his motion all the grounds therefor, and those not so included are deemed waived and cease to be available for subsequent motions.
For all litigation must come to an end at some point, in accordance with established rules of procedure and jurisprudence. As a matter of practice and policy, courts must dispose of every case as promptly as possible; and in fulfillment of their role in the administration of justice, they should brook no delay in the termination of cases by stratagems or maneuverings of parties or their lawyers.20
As an exception, by leave of court,21 a party may file a second motion for reconsideration of the decision. The second motion for reconsideration may be subsequently granted "in the higher interest of justice." Rule 15, Section 3 of our Internal Rules provides:
Section 3. Second motion for reconsideration. - The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en bane upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is reconsideration "in the higher interest of justice" when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court’s declaration.
In the Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.22
Nothing in Rule 15, Section 3 of the Internal Rules, however, states that the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of a decision will not lapse into finality. The grant of leave to file a second motion for reconsideration only means that the second motion for reconsideration is no longer prohibited.23 Regardless of the grant of leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the decision becomes final and executory by operation of law. The grant of a second motion for reconsideration only means that the judgment, had it been entered in the book of entries of judgments, may be lifted.24 In Aliviado v. Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. :25
.. several pleadings after receipt of the resolution denying [the} first motion for reconsideration does not in any way bar the finality or entry of judgment. Besides, to reckon the finality of a judgment from the receipt of the denial of the second motion for reconsideration would be absurd. First, the Rules of Court and the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court prohibit the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. Second, some crafty litigants may resort to filing prohibited pleadings just to delay entry of judgment.26 (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied)[T] he issuance of the entry of judgment is reckoned from the time the parties received a copy of the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration. The filing of.