High court has reversed itself on 2nd MR

Regarding Arnulfo M. Edralin’s letter titled “SC infallibility grandma of legal fictions” (Opinion, 2/18/15), may I point out that the Supreme Court in several cases has reversed several decisions on second motion for reconsideration (MR). Like it did in its Oct. 12, 2001, ruling in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp. vs. Juan Amante et al. (GR No. 112526, 3/16/05). In its amended decision, the Court restored the award given by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board of 255 hectares of agricultural land of the Yulos in Canlubang, Laguna, to 82 farmer-beneficiaries. But it should be noted that the Court reversed itself on second MR!

However, I agree with Edralin that the Court makes mistakes—grievous, in many cases, like in Bank of Commerce vs. Radio Philippines Network Inc. (GR No. 195615, 4/21/14) where it reversed after four years the final, executory and immutable the Dec. 8, 2009, decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing Bank of Commerce’s petition and affirming the RTC (regional trial court) writ of execution, saying that the lower court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ. Not only that, the decision violated other established doctrines. For example, only questions of law may be subject of review under Rule 45; nevertheless, the Court examined questions of fact. Another example: The dispositive portion should prevail over the body of the decision, yet the Court gave weight to a phrase in the body of the decision. Worse, the decision did not express clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it was based!

Finally, Edralin’s statement that “although it encourages the notion that motions for reconsideration are appropriate means to invite its attention to any possible lapses, they are almost always nothing but exercises in futility.” This does not sit well with our justice system, but it is sometimes painfully true. And while the Bank of Commerce vs. Radio Philippines Network case is under reconsideration, I am not giving up hope that the highest tribunal will repeat its 2005 act in Sta. Rosa Realty vs. Juan Amante et al., by again reversing itself for having violated at least four long-established legal doctrines cited above.

—F. CARMELO J. AQUINO, Esteban Mayo Street, Lipa City