SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion Development Authority
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the development of a 33.1-hectare property in Fort Bonifacio. SM Land, Inc. (SMLI) entered into negotiations with the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) for a joint venture development. Following successful negotiations, BCDA issued a Certification of Successful Negotiations, agreeing to subject SMLI's proposal to a competitive challenge. However, BCDA later issued a Supplemental Notice No. 5, terminating this competitive challenge process, which SMLI contended was a breach of their agreement and an abuse of discretion. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated August 13, 2014, granted SMLI's petition for certiorari, finding that BCDA gravely abused its discretion by cancelling the competitive challenge. BCDA and its president subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to file a Second Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the Court's ruling would cause irreparable injury to the government. They also sought for the case to be heard by the Court en banc. The Department of National Defense (DND) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) also filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene, claiming they are statutory beneficiaries of the proceeds from the property's development. The Petition: The respondent-movants, BCDA and its president, filed a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading. They argued that the agreement with SMLI was never perfected, that the government's reservation to cancel the challenge was a policy decision, that mandamus would not lie, and that estoppel could not prejudice the government. They also contended that the case should be heard by the Court en banc, citing a perceived presidential order and the constitutional requirement for cases involving presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations to be heard en banc. The DND and AFP sought to intervene, asserting their legal and financial interest as beneficiaries of the property's proceeds, which are intended for the AFP Modernization Program. The Supreme Court denied both the second motion for reconsideration and the motion for intervention, finding no merit in the arguments and noting that the original decision had already attained finality.
Issue(s)
Whether the Second Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading that should be denied. Whether the case involves a 'presidential instruction' that requires the jurisdiction of the Court En Banc. Whether the DND and AFP have sufficient legal interest to intervene in the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DENIED the Motion for Leave to file Second Motion for Reconsideration and the Joint Motion for Intervention. The Court ordered that no further pleadings shall be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Second Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Under Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court and Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, no second motion for reconsideration shall be entertained except in the higher interest of justice by the Court En Banc. In this case, the BCDA failed to present extraordinarily persuasive reasons, as its motion was a mere rehash of arguments already settled in the August 13, 2014 Decision and the March 18, 2015 Resolution. Furthermore, since an Entry of Judgment has already been issued, the decision has attained finality and is now immutable. Applying Mocorro, Jr. v. Ramirez, the Court emphasized that the orderly administration of justice requires that judgments reach a point of finality to write finis to disputes. On Issue 2: The case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court En Banc. Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution requires the En Banc to hear cases involving the operation of presidential 'orders' or 'instructions.' However, the Court clarified that this refers to formal executive issuances signed by the President or the Executive Secretary 'by authority of the President' as contemplated in the Administrative Code of 1987. The Court distinguished Ykalina v. Oricio, noting that the 'verbal order' doctrine therein was limited to appointments and is largely antiquated. Since there was no formal executive order or attested document from the President directing the cancellation of the Swiss Challenge, the Division properly exercised jurisdiction. On Issue 3: The DND and AFP lack the requisite legal interest to intervene. Under Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, an intervenor must have an interest that is 'actual and material,' not 'indirect and remote.' The Court held that the DND and AFP's 'right to the proceeds' of the BCDA project is merely an inchoate right, as it is contingent upon the successful completion of a bidding process that has not yet occurred. Applying Ongco v. Dalisay, the Court ruled that a mere expectancy of future benefit does not constitute a vested right sufficient to allow intervention, especially when the intervention would only serve to delay the adjudication of the original parties' rights.
Main Doctrine
A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Court and the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. It may only be entertained in the 'higher interest of justice' by the Court En Banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership, provided the motion is made before the ruling becomes final. Once an Entry of Judgment is issued, the decision becomes immutable and unalterable, and the Court loses jurisdiction to modify it, except for clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, or void judgments. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Court En Banc over cases involving 'presidential instructions' is limited to formal executive issuances and does not extend to verbal intimations or policy shifts not formalized through the Executive Secretary.