People v. Macavinta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Severino Macavinta, Jr., a member of the Philippine Bar, filed a second motion for reconsideration which was denied for being filed late. Procedural History: The second motion for reconsideration was filed late. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion for leave to be allowed to appear on his own behalf and be heard in oral argument in support of the aforementioned late second motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner sought leave to appear and be heard in oral argument on his second motion for reconsideration, premising his plea on what he termed "the interest of justice and expediency." The motion also imputed negligence to his counsel of record, Attorney Sergio L. Guadiz. The Court required Attorney Guadiz to comment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court should grant leave for the petitioner to appear on his own behalf and be heard in oral argument on a second motion for reconsideration that was filed late. Whether the imputation of negligence to counsel warrants a departure from procedural rules.
Ruling
The Court denied the urgent motion for leave by the petitioner to be heard on oral argument. Attorney Sergio L. Guadiz was admonished to take greater pains in the discharge of his obligations to a client, specifically regarding awareness of periods for filing pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court should grant leave for the petitioner to appear on his own behalf and be heard in oral argument on a second motion for reconsideration that was filed late: The Court held that the petitioner's plea, premised on "the interest of justice and expediency," lacked support in law and therefore did not merit approval. A second motion for reconsideration, especially when filed late, is generally proscribed. While the Court possesses the inherent power to suspend its own rules or allow exceptions, this power is not to be exercised arbitrarily. It must be invoked judiciously and for compelling reasons that serve the interest of substantial justice. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such compelling reasons, relying instead on a general assertion that did not meet the legal threshold for overriding established procedural norms. The procedural posture of the case did not extend beyond the disposition of the motion for leave, and the Court found no legal basis to grant the petitioner's request. On Whether the imputation of negligence to counsel warrants a departure from procedural rules: The Court noted that the motion imputed negligence to the petitioner's counsel of record, Attorney Sergio L. Guadiz. Attorney Guadiz was asked to comment on this imputation. Instead of providing a substantive explanation for the tardy submission, his comment was a "lame assertion that it simply was not so." Under these circumstances, the Court felt that a brief recital of pertinent matters was called for, rather than a mere minute resolution of denial. Consequently, Attorney Guadiz was admonished to take greater pains in the discharge of his obligations to a client, specifically concerning his cognizance of the periods for filing pleadings. This admonishment serves as a reminder of the professional responsibilities of members of the Bar.
Main Doctrine
A second motion for reconsideration, particularly one filed beyond the reglementary period, is generally not allowed. The Court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, suspend its own rules or grant exceptions, but such discretion must be exercised judiciously and for compelling reasons that serve the interest of substantial justice. A mere assertion of 'interest of justice and expediency' without a clear legal basis is insufficient to warrant the allowance of a late motion or oral argument thereon.