JOSEFINA MAGDAMIT BELARMA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. NELSON B. BAYOT, JR., CONCEPCION C. DAPLAS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TREASURER OF PASAY CITY, MARIO S.P. DIAZ, ACTING REGI…

Belarma versus Bayot

The Case

This is the case of Belarma versus Bayot, a petition brought by Josefina Magdamit Belarma against Nelson Bayot, Junior, and several public officers of Pasay City. The decision before us, however, is a very short resolution of the Supreme Court acting on the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Court refused to disturb its earlier decision promulgated on the fifteenth of February, 2013, because the motion raised no new or substantial ground. The case matters to a reviewee for one narrow but recurring reason: it is a clean illustration of the settled rule that a motion for reconsideration must present a new or substantial ground, and that a mere rehash of arguments already passed upon will not move the Court.

Procedural History

The decision text before us does not narrate the proceedings in the trial court or in the Court of Appeals. What the text does tell us is that the Supreme Court had earlier issued a decision in this case on the fifteenth of February, 2013. From that decision, the petitioner, Josefina Magdamit Belarma, filed a motion for reconsideration. The Court, through the ponencia of Justice Garcia-Fernandez, with Justices De Leon as Chairperson and Cruz concurring, acted on that motion and issued the resolution now before us denying it.

Facts

The decision text is a resolution on a motion for reconsideration and does not set out the underlying facts of the controversy. What we know is that Josefina Magdamit Belarma was the plaintiff-appellant, and that she had sued Nelson Bayot, Junior, Concepcion Daplas in her official capacity as Treasurer of Pasay City, Mario Diaz as Acting Register of Deeds, and other public officers. The nature of her action and the relief she sought are not stated in the text.

The case reached the Supreme Court, which rendered a decision on the fifteenth of February, 2013. The petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision.

In its resolution, the Court examined the motion and found that it raised no new or substantial ground or reason that would call for a reversal of its findings.

Issues

• Whether or not the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner raised a new or substantial ground or reason warranting a reconsideration of the decision promulgated on the fifteenth of February, 2013.
• Whether or not the findings of the Court in that decision should be reversed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision text does not quote or construe any statutory or constitutional provision. It rests entirely on the settled procedural standard governing motions for reconsideration, which the Court stated in its own words:

Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, this Court finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the decision promulgated on February 15, 2013 since the motion has not raised any new or substantial ground or reason calling for reversal of this Court's findings.

This standard bears on the case because it is the sole measure by which the Court tested the petitioner's motion, and the motion failed that measure.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the motion for reconsideration raised no new or substantial ground or reason. It found no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of its decision of the fifteenth of February, 2013. The Court explained that the motion had not raised any new or substantial ground or reason calling for a reversal of its findings.

On the second issue, because no new or substantial ground was shown, the Court declined to reverse its findings and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration must raise a new or substantial ground or reason. A motion that merely repeats arguments already passed upon, and presents nothing new or substantial, gives the Court no cogent reason to reconsider its decision. The findings of the Court stand, and the motion is denied. A Bar candidate should state the rule in exactly these terms: reconsideration lies only upon a new or substantial ground, and absent such a ground the prior decision is maintained.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration was denied, and the decision of the fifteenth of February, 2013 stands.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a motion for reconsideration must raise a new or substantial ground or reason, and without one the Court finds no cogent reason to reconsider. Examiners use this case in remedial law and procedure to test the standard for motions for reconsideration and the consequence of a motion that merely rehashes prior arguments.