Ramos v. Central Bank of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves a dispute over forty-seven (47) million pesos representing interest on Central Bank loans and advances to Overseas Bank of Manila, now COMBANK. A per curiam resolution dated October 19, 1982, granted the motion for clarificatory ruling filed by Intervenor Combank, ruling that the bank was not liable for interest during its closure period. Procedural History: The Central Bank filed a first motion for reconsideration, which resulted in a split vote: five (5) Justices voted for granting and five (5) voted for denial, with three (3) taking no part. Subsequently, the Central Bank filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, followed by the second motion itself. In the resolution on these motions, four (4) Justices voted for denial, while five (5) voted for granting, with three (3) taking no part. The Petition: The Central Bank filed a motion for leave to file a third motion for reconsideration and the motion itself, seeking a clarificatory ruling and reconsideration of previous resolutions. The Court denied these motions, noting that entry of judgment had already been made and that third motions for reconsideration are not permitted.
Issue(s)
Whether the per curiam resolution of October 19, 1982, was supported by the concurrence of at least eight members as required by the Constitution. Whether the Central Bank's third motion for reconsideration should be entertained.
Ruling
The Court denied the Central Bank's Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Attached Motion for Clarificatory Ruling and/or Third Motion for Reconsideration. Entry of judgment had already been made on January 30, 1986. Third motions for reconsideration are not permitted, and there was nothing to clarify.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the per curiam resolution's validity: The Court noted that the per curiam resolution of October 19, 1982, was not supported by the required "concurrence of at least eight members" as mandated by Section 2, Article X of the Constitution. This was evidenced by the split voting on the subsequent motions for reconsideration, where the first motion resulted in a 5-5 tie and the second motion saw a 4-5 vote against denial. The Court found that the initial appearance of unanimity in the per curiam resolution was unmasked by the subsequent divided votes, indicating that the resolution did not achieve the constitutional threshold for a valid decision. On the permissibility of a third motion for reconsideration: The Court explicitly stated that third motions for reconsideration are not permitted. This procedural bar was a primary reason for denying the respondent's motion. The Court also pointed out that entry of judgment had already been made on January 30, 1986, which generally forecloses further pleadings or motions, including those seeking reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
Third motions for reconsideration are generally not permitted, and a per curiam resolution, even if initially appearing unanimous, must be supported by the required number of votes as stipulated by the Constitution for its validity, especially when challenged through subsequent motions.