TANYA KATRINA ESPERON AND WILBUR C. BARILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, GAPAN CITY, SPOUSES REGINO D. SORITA AND JOSEFINA M. INFANTE, RESPONDENTS.

Esperon versus Regional Trial Court of Gapan City

The Case

This is the case of Esperon versus the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, an action brought by Tanya Katrina Esperon and Wilbur C. Barillo against the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, of Gapan City, and against the spouses Regino Sorita and Josefina Infante. The petitioners came to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari, and the decision before us resolves their motion for reconsideration of the Court's earlier dismissal of that petition. The case matters to a reviewee for what it teaches about finality and about the narrow room left for a motion for reconsideration: once the Court has spoken and no cogent reason appears, the matter ends.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. On June 13, 2014, the Court rendered a decision dismissing that petition. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. The private respondents, the spouses Sorita and Infante, did not file their comment on the motion, as reflected in the report of the Judicial Records Division dated October 16, 2014. The Court then resolved the motion for reconsideration in the decision now before us.

Facts

The material facts, as they appear in the decision, are procedural rather than narrative. The petitioners, Tanya Katrina Esperon and Wilbur C. Barillo, sought relief from the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, naming as respondents the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, of Gapan City, and the spouses Regino Sorita and Josefina Infante.

On June 13, 2014, the Court issued a decision dismissing the petition for certiorari. The petitioners responded by filing a motion for reconsideration, asking the Court to revisit that dismissal.

The private respondents did not file a comment on the motion for reconsideration. The Court examined the arguments raised by the petitioners and resolved the motion in the decision now before us.

Issues

• Whether or not there exists a cogent reason to modify, reverse, or deviate from the findings and conclusions reached in the Court's decision of June 13, 2014 dismissing the petition for certiorari.
• Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote or construe any statutory or constitutional provision. It rests entirely on the settled rule that a motion for reconsideration will not be granted absent a cogent reason to modify or reverse a prior decision. No provision is therefore quoted here, because none appears in the decision text.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that after a thorough scrutiny of the arguments interposed by the petitioners, there exists no cogent reason to modify, much less reverse and deviate from, the findings and conclusions reached in its earlier decision. The Court stated the rule in these words:

After a thorough scrutiny of the arguments interposed by petitioners, we find and so hold, that there exists no cogent reason for us to modify, much less reverse and deviate from the findings and conclusions reached in our Decision.

On the second issue, because no cogent reason appeared, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. The absence of a comment from the private respondents did not alter the result, since the Court's ruling turned on the merits of the petitioners' arguments, not on any default by the respondents.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration is not a matter of right to be granted on demand. It will be denied where the Court, after thorough scrutiny of the arguments raised, finds no cogent reason to modify, reverse, or deviate from the findings and conclusions in its decision. The standard is cogent reason: the movant must show a compelling basis for the Court to change course, not merely repeat the arguments already weighed and rejected. Where that standard is not met, the prior decision stands, and the motion is denied.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration was denied, so the petitioners lost and the Court's decision of June 13, 2014 dismissing their petition for certiorari stands.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that a motion for reconsideration fails where there exists no cogent reason to modify, much less reverse and deviate from, the findings and conclusions already reached. Examiners use this case to test the standard for granting a motion for reconsideration and the finality of a dismissal that no cogent reason disturbs.