SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240488. September 4, 2019.]
CENTRAL COMMAND (CENTCOM), ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners,vs. PROVINCE OF CEBU, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 4, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240488 — CENTRAL COMMAND (CENTCOM), ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners v. PROVINCE OF CEBU, respondent.
To be considered and resolved are: (a) petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for the Court En Banc to Take Cognizance of this Case), 1 and (b) petitioners' Second Motion for Reconsideration. 2
Antecedents
By Deed of Donation, dated 12 October 1959, respondent donated forty-seven (47) parcels of land with a total area of 806,943 sq. meters to the then Third Military Area, Philippine Army, Armed Forces of the Philippines (now Central Command Armed Forces of the Philippines or CENTCOM). Titles to the donated properties were subsequently transferred to the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), which remained the owner of the questioned properties through CENTCOM. 3
Respondent, however, decided to unilaterally revoke the aforesaid donation over the unused lots through Resolution No. 332-94, dated 7 February 1994, 4 on the basis of abandonment, non-use or use other than military purposes, which was a provision in the Deed of Donation 5 covering the donated lots. According to respondent, only 14 out of the 47 donated lots were used for military or military-related purposes. 6
On 26 January 2005, respondent filed an ejectment case against CENTCOM and the Republic before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Cebu City. It claimed that pursuant to the provision in the Deed of Donation, the ownership of the unused donated properties automatically reverted to the Province of Cebu, which should be entitled to the possession and control of the lots. 7
After preliminary proceedings, respondent filed a Motion for Judgment Based on a Compromise Agreement, together with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into by the Governor of the Province of Cebu, the Secretary of National Defense, the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Chairman of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. However, petitioners' counsel later filed a motion requesting the MTCC for additional time to file the appropriate pleading since he would still secure the position of the OSG. This was followed by several more requests for extension to file pleadings. 8
When petitioners still failed to file any pleading, the MTCC, through an Order, dated 20 July 2009, declared that it could no longer grant the latest motion for extension of petitioners and proceeded to rule on respondent's motion for judgment based on compromise agreement. It declared that the allegations embodied in the Compromise Agreement are not contrary to law, public order, public morals or public policy, thereby warranting its approval, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Compromise Agreement entered into by the parties pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding is hereby APPROVED and JUDGMENT is likewise rendered based on the terms and conditions set forth therein.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 9
Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC's ruling through a Decision rendered on 29 October 2010. 10 According to the RTC, the assailed judgment was based on a compromise agreement wherein the parties voluntarily agreed to settle the controversies among themselves. Hence, any issue relative to the case are deemed moot and academic as the parties have already decided to redefine their relationship as stipulated in the MOU. 11
Unperturbed, petitioners appealed before the Court of Appeals based on a lone assignment of error that the trial court erred in approving the MOU despite the nullity of the revocation of donation. 12
On 19 February 2016, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision 13 denying petitioners' appeal, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB-36134, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 14
The appellate court ruled that petitioners' appeal warrants its outright dismissal for being a wrong remedy to question the RTC judgment. Since the RTC decision was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, petitioners should have filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court instead of an appeal. In any case, the Court of Appeals found unmeritorious petitioners' contention that the revocation of the donation was void. It agreed with the ruling of the RTC that the Compromise Agreement already settled the issues between the parties. Moreover, it held that a judicial compromise can only be set aside on the ground of fraud, mistake, and duress. 15
Petitioners, thereafter, filed a motion for extension 16 and a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. 17
In its 3 December 2018 Resolution, 18 the Court denied the motion for extension for failure to attach proof of service of the motion to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. By virtue of such denial, the Court, in the same resolution, denied the petition for review for having been filed out of time and for failure of petitioners to pay the required Sheriff's Trust Fund.
Petitioners moved to reconsider on 12 February 2019 the above resolution, but the Court denied the motion with finality through its 1 April 2019 Resolution. 19 The Court also declared that no further pleadings or motions shall be entertained, and an entry of judgment in this case be issued immediately.
On 29 May 2019, an Entry of Judgment was issued pursuant to the directive of the Court. 20
In the aforementioned submissions, the petitioners seek: (a) to have the Court grant their motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration; (b) to have their second motion for reconsideration and petition for review on certiorari be referred to the Court En Banc; 21 (c) to have the Court grant their second motion for reconsideration thereby setting aside the assailed minute resolutions of the Court, dated 3 December 2019 and 1 April 2019; (d) that the Court give due course to their petition for review on certiorari; and (e) after proper proceedings, that the Court reverse and set aside the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and dismiss the ejectment complaint filed before the MTCC. 22
The Court's Ruling
We DENY petitioners' submissions.
Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that "no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained." Only for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave has been first obtained may a second motion be entertained. 23
The restrictive policy against a second motion for reconsideration is reiterated in Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, which reads:
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 banc 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. (emphasis supplied)
Unfortunately for petitioners, the assailed decision had already become final and executory on 1 April 2019, and an entry of judgment had already been issued on 29 May 2019. Moreover, this Court's Resolution, promulgated on 1 April 2019, declared that no further pleadings should be entertained. Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration can no longer be considered.
The finality of the Court's resolutions in this case also precludes the referral of the case to the Court En Banc. As provided for in the Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, 24 the Court En Banc is not an appellate court and can only accept a case for decision or resolution before a judgment therein rendered becomes final and executory, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
3. The Court en banc is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.
4. At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and before a judgment or resolution therein rendered becomes final and executory, the Division may refer the case en consulta to the Court en banc which, after consideration of the reasons of the Division for such referral may return the case to the Division or accept the case for decision or resolution. (emphasis supplied)
In any case, the urgings of petitioners are not persuasive.
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions to avoid litigation or to put an end to one already commenced. It is an accepted and highly encouraged practice in the courts of law of this jurisdiction. It attains the authority and effect of res judicata upon the parties upon its execution, and becomes immediately final and executory, unless rescinded by grounds which vitiate consent. Once stamped with judicial imprimatur, it ceases to be a mere contract between the parties, and becomes a judgment of the court, to be enforced through a writ of execution. 25 In this case, the petitioners failed to show that the execution of the compromise agreement was tainted with fraud, mistake or duress.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit the Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for the Court En Banc to Take Cognizance of this Case); and NOTES WITHOUT ACTION petitioners' Second Motion for Reconsideration in view of the denial of the former.
In addition, the Court reiterates that NO FURTHER PLEADINGS shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 179-199.
2.Id. at pp. 200-234.
3.Id. at pp. 57-58.
4.Id. at p. 121.
5. x x x upon abandonment, non-use or use other than military purposes for which the above-described properties have been donated unto the Armed n Forces of the Philippines, the ownership of the above-described properties shall automatically revert to the DONOR, the Province of Cebu.
6.Rollo, p. 58.
7.Id.
8. Petitioners filed their first motion for extension on December 23, 2008. The last manifestation and motion they filed was on June 11, 2009.
9.Rollo, pp. 59-60.
10.Id. at p. 60.
11.Id. at p. 62.
12.Id. at p. 60.
13.Id. at pp. 57-63; Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and concurred in by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
14.Id. at p. 62.
15.Id. at pp. 60-62.
16.Id. at pp. 3-7.
17.Id. at pp. 11-51.
18.Id. at p. 155.
19.Id. at p. 169.
20.Id. at p. 177.
21.Id. at p. 193.
22.Id. at p. 229.
23.League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, June 28, 2011, 652 SCRA 798, 808-809.
24. Guidelines and Rules in Referral to Court En Banc of Cases Assigned to a Division, Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, February 7, 1989.
25.Tung Hui Chung v. Shih Chiu Huang, G.R. No. 170679, March 9, 2016.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Army" in the official document.