PAMPANGA III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (PELCO III), PETITIONER, VS. CENTERRA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

Pampanga III Electric Cooperative versus Centerra Corporation

The Case

This is the case of Pampanga III Electric Cooperative versus Centerra Corporation. The electric cooperative comes before the Supreme Court as petitioner, seeking to overturn a judgment rendered against it in favor of Centerra Corporation. What reaches us here is not a fresh trial on the merits but a motion for reconsideration of the Court's own prior decision. The case matters to a reviewee for a narrow but practical reason: it illustrates how the Supreme Court treats a motion for reconsideration whose grounds have already been considered and resolved, and how the failure of a party to file its comment within the reglementary period is treated as a waiver. It is a study in finality and in the discipline of procedure.

Procedural History

The case reached the Supreme Court, which rendered a decision on the twenty eighth of June, 2013, resolving the matter against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision. The motion was filed by registered mail on the twenty ninth of July, 2013. The respondent, Centerra Corporation, was required to file a comment on that motion but failed to do so within the reglementary period. The Supreme Court then took up the motion for reconsideration and resolved it in the minute resolution now before us.

Facts

The material facts are procedural and spare. The Supreme Court had already decided the case on the merits in a decision dated the twenty eighth of June, 2013. That decision disposed of the controversy between the electric cooperative and Centerra Corporation.

On the twenty ninth of July, 2013, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision, transmitting it by registered mail. The respondent did not file any comment on the motion within the period allowed by the rules.

The Court examined the motion and the arguments raised in it. It found that those arguments had already been carefully considered, evaluated, and passed upon in the assailed decision. Finding no strong and cogent reason to disturb its judgment, the Court denied the motion.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent's failure to file a comment on the motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period amounts to a waiver of that filing.
• Whether or not the grounds raised in the petitioner's motion for reconsideration warrant the reversal of the Court's decision dated the twenty eighth of June, 2013.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory or constitutional provision. It rests instead on the settled procedural rule that a motion for reconsideration must be denied where the grounds raised have already been considered and passed upon, and that a party who fails to file a required pleading within the reglementary period is deemed to have waived its filing. The Court states the governing standard for disturbing a judgment in this wise:

Thus, there being no strong and cogent reason to disturb the assailed judgment, instant motion is hereby DENIED.

This standard bears directly on the case: the petitioner had to show a strong and cogent reason, and the Court found none because its arguments were already resolved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is deemed to have waived the filing of the comment on the motion for its failure to file such pleading within the reglementary period. The consequence is procedural: the motion proceeded to resolution without the respondent's comment.

On the second issue, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. It reasoned that the arguments raised by the petitioner had already been carefully considered, evaluated, and passed upon in the assailed decision. There being no strong and cogent reason to disturb the judgment, the motion had to fail. The Court put the matter plainly:

After a perusal of the instant motion, We find that the arguments raised by the petitioner have already been carefully considered, evaluated and passed upon by this Court in the assailed Decision.

The Court thus declined to revisit its prior ruling, and the motion was denied.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain the following rules. First, a motion for reconsideration will be denied where the arguments raised have already been carefully considered, evaluated, and passed upon in the assailed decision; a movant must present a strong and cogent reason to disturb the judgment. Second, a party who fails to file a required comment or pleading within the reglementary period is deemed to have waived its filing, and the case may proceed without it. These rules are procedural in character and protect the finality of judgments and the orderly conduct of litigation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, leaving its decision of the twenty eighth of June, 2013 undisturbed, and deemed the respondent to have waived the filing of its comment.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a motion for reconsideration fails where its grounds have already been considered and passed upon, absent a strong and cogent reason to disturb the judgment. Examiners use this case to test the procedural rules on motions for reconsideration and on the waiver of the right to file a comment upon failure to file it within the reglementary period.