TOMAS V. DUCAY, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SAN JOSE CITY WATER DISTRICT, RESPONDENT.

Tomas Ducay versus San Jose City Water District

The Case

This is the case of Tomas Ducay versus San Jose City Water District. The petitioner, Tomas Ducay, Junior, sought relief from the Supreme Court against the San Jose City Water District, the respondent, after the Civil Service Commission issued resolutions affecting him. The matter reached the Court through a petition for review of the Commission's resolutions, and the Court rendered a decision on June 10, 2014 affirming those resolutions. What is before us now is the sequel: the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and his Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration of that decision. The case matters to a reviewee because it illustrates the discipline of the Supreme Court's motion for reconsideration practice, and because it shows how the Court treats a motion that merely repeats arguments already weighed and rejected.

Procedural History

The case began with the Civil Service Commission, which issued Resolution Number 10-1244 dated June 15, 2010 and Resolution Number 10-00441 dated December 7, 2010. The petitioner challenged those resolutions before the Supreme Court through a petition for review. On June 10, 2014, the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision affirming the assailed Civil Service Commission resolutions. The petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 9, 2014, followed by a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration on July 15, 2014. The respondent, San Jose City Water District, filed its Comment on September 5, 2014, praying that the motions for reconsideration be denied. The Court then resolved the motions in the decision now before us.

Facts

The petitioner, Tomas Ducay, Junior, was the subject of proceedings before the Civil Service Commission, which issued two resolutions against him, dated June 15, 2010 and December 7, 2010. Seeking to overturn those resolutions, he brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

On June 10, 2014, the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision affirming the Civil Service Commission's resolutions. The petitioner did not accept that outcome. On July 9, 2014, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and on July 15, 2014, he filed a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration.

The respondent, San Jose City Water District, responded with a Comment filed on September 5, 2014, asking that the motions be denied. The Court then carefully reviewed the arguments raised in the two motions.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration raise matters that were not already considered and found without merit in the June 10, 2014 Decision.
• Whether or not there is a compelling reason to modify, reverse, or set aside the Court's previous Decision affirming the Civil Service Commission's resolutions.

Applicable Provisions

The decision text before us does not quote or construe any statutory or constitutional provision. It rests entirely on the Court's assessment of the motions for reconsideration against its prior Decision. No provision is therefore quoted here, because none appears in the decision.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the arguments raised in the two motions were a mere reiteration of matters previously considered and found to be without merit in the Decision subject of the recourse. The Court stated:

After carefully reviewing the arguments raised in the two motions, We found the same to be mere reiteration of matters previously considered and found to be without merit in the Decision subject of this recourse.

On the second issue, because the arguments were merely repeated, the Court saw no compelling reason to disturb its prior ruling. It held:

We thus see no compelling reason to modify, reverse, or set aside Our previous Decision.

The Court thus resolved both issues against the petitioner, denying the motions and leaving its June 10, 2014 Decision standing unchanged.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration must raise new matter or a genuine ground not already passed upon. Where the arguments are a mere reiteration of matters previously considered and found to be without merit, the motion presents no compelling reason to modify, reverse, or set aside the Decision, and it must be denied. The prior Decision then stands unchanged. A Bar candidate should state the rule this way: a motion for reconsideration that merely repeats rejected arguments is denied for lack of any compelling reason to disturb the ruling.

Disposition

The motions for reconsideration were denied, and the Supreme Court's Decision promulgated on June 10, 2014 stands unchanged. The respondent, San Jose City Water District, prevailed.

Remember This

Remember the line worth memorizing: a motion that is a mere reiteration of matters previously considered and found to be without merit offers no compelling reason to modify, reverse, or set aside the Decision. Examiners use this case to test the standard for granting a motion for reconsideration and the effect of denying one, namely that the original Decision stands unchanged.