April 5, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CONCURRING OPINION
SERENO, J.:
I write separately to express my concern over what I perceive as an unhealthy invocation of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, specifically Section 3, Rule 15, on the matter of entertaining second motions for reconsideration to set aside a final judgment of this Court. Admittedly, having been appointed to the Court after the effectivity of the said rule on 22 May 2010, I do not have the advantage of knowing firsthand the history of the said rule, but I have heard enough, during the deliberations on this case, of the problem that will continue to be engendered by Section 3, Rule 15.
I understand that at the time the above rule was formulated, the Court did not expect that a conscious two-step process would be so rigidly demanded by any of its Members to the point that the rule would be used as basis to move to recall a final judgment of this Court. Neither was it fully anticipated that the refusal to do so would lead to concerns on the possible removal of Members of the Court for violation of its own rules. Thus, I agree with the wise formulation of Justice Arturo D. Brion that the requirement of the 1987 Constitution, specifically Article VIII, Section 4 (2) have been met by the fact that a majority of the Court took part in the deliberation on 12 October 2010; and therefore, that the voting that took place thereon was valid, and more important, that the satisfaction of this constitutional requirement overrides any concern about the lack of a conscious, express super-majority vote by the Court to entertain a second motion for reconsideration.
What is unhealthy from what I see is that the objection rising from a lack of a super-majority vote is raised in one case, but not raised in others by the same objecting member -- Justice Roberto A. Abad. If Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules was such an important bar that must be met in any motion for reconsideration, then it should have been raised by him as well in the still unpromulgated ruling in the Dinagat case.[1] The Court has realized the difficulty that the said rule introduces. It should not be further invoked by any of its Members in a way that introduces further instability and fuels the public perception of a flip-flopping Court. With more reason, the rule should not have been invoked only in this case, but not in the two other highly controversial flip-flopping cases, by any of the Court’s Members who strongly moved for the reconsideration of the original decision in League of Cities[2] and for the recall of the entry of final judgment in Dinagat. Technically, Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of Court, does not apply to the reconsideration of the original Decision in League of Cities. Had there been a consistent intent to protect the immutability of Supreme Court decisions, however, a similar rule in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure could have been invoked, namely, Section 2, Rule 56, in relation to Section 2, Rule 52, prohibiting the filing of second motions for reconsideration.
While the classic lines in Banogon v. Zerna[3] are writ in large part to litigants to make them accept that the orderly administration of justice means that their causes must end at some time, it is most earnestly and humbly believed that those lines must be re-learned by this Court as well. This re-learning seems urgent, especially with the reversal of the original Decision in League of Cities, followed by the reversal of the fully executory Dinagat Decision.
To recall those lines:
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
There should be a greater awareness on the part of litigants that the time of the judiciary, much more so of this Court, is too valuable to be wasted or frittered away by efforts, far from commendable, to evade the operation of a decision final and executory, especially so, where, as shown in this case, the clear and manifest absence of any right calling for vindication, is quite obvious and indisputable.
That this concern about the endlessness of litigation should morph --from one regarding the behavior of litigants to one regarding the stability of the decision-making instincts of the Members of this Court -- is shared by Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Arturo D. Brion as well in their Opinions in League of Cities and Dinagat. To re-cast the lines of Banogon v. Serna, I would venture to say this:
There should be a greater awareness of the members of judiciary, that its time, especially that of the Supreme Court, is too valuable to be wasted or frittered away by efforts, far from commendable, that come from any quarter including its own, to evade the operation of a decision final and executory, especially so, where, as shown in this case, the clear and manifest absence of any right calling for vindication, is quite obvious and indisputable.
What has been at stake in the flip-flopping cases and now in the puzzling invocation of the Internal Rules of the Court in this case is no less than the risk that the moral force of Supreme Court judgments will be undermined. The Supreme Court’s word is final because all the coercive forces of the state apparatus will ensure its execution, by operation of the Constitution. The Members of the Court must never lose sight of the fact that it owes the authority of its decisions only to the Constitution and, hence, to the people themselves. When the moral force of the decisions of the Supreme Court is lost because the people do not see in them the application of procedural rules in an even manner, then it is conceivable that even the automatic legal force given to its decisions may likewise be lost. That would be a most sad period in its history.
While Justice Brion, in his Dissent in the latest Dinagat Decision, invokes the non-adherence to Sec. 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Court as an additional reason to object to the reversal of the Dinagat original Decision, his sentiments must be taken in the context of the recent puzzling reversals of this Court. Thus, while I am not convinced about the necessity of the above rule, I understand and fully support the spirit in which it was made -- to restore belief and actual adherence to the doctrine of immutability of judgments and its necessary by-product, the stability of judicial decisions. There need actually be no hard and fast rule on the matter if the members of this Court were to remember that there are behind every good decision, whose dispositive effect must be immutable, lie fundamental rules of sound legal reasoning. When these are absent, as in the reversals of the original decision in League of Cities and Dinagat, for reasons that are hollow and even appear unjust, then the convenient invocation or non-invocation of the technical rules of procedure acquires a more egregious, distasteful taste. Such situation must be avoided by any court with a long-term perspective of its role, and that understands the need to guard its legacy.
On the substantial ruling in this case, while I have full sympathy for the financial condition of the public respondent and the National Government, Justice Brion’s assessment of the respective legal rights and obligations of the parties is correct. In an interim voting that took place in this case, I had wanted, and indeed voted for, the imposition of a mere 6% interest and not a 12% interest on the principal amount due petitioners. Thus, I do not fully agree with the rate of interest imposed by the Decision. It is also correct, however, that a strong signal must be sent that the Government cannot willfully refuse to promptly pay a just obligation. The problem that remains unaddressed, though, is who should bear responsibility for the unjust delay in payment that happened here. The ponencia has already named the various government actors whose prompt resolution of petitioners’ claim was required, and who failed to discharge such duty. Unless these actors are made operationally liable for the unjust delay, it will be the taxpayer who will ultimately bear the adverse financial consequences of our findings and directive in this case, as usually happen in most public accountability cases. Our public officers responsible for guarding the coffers of our government from irresponsible acts of its officers must do more than just accept the immediate effects of the fallo of the Decision in this case.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
No comments:
Post a Comment