When SC violates the rules

In 2011, STEVE Y. VESPERA, ESQ. <styves888@yahoo.com> wrote the following criticism of the Supreme Court (SC). He was referring to multiple motions for reconsideration entered by the Court in a certain case involving 16 pseudo-cities. In Vespera's article, he also exposed what is perceived to be "procedural privilege" wielded by retired SC justices who "return to private practice have been known to easily find their way around the labyrinth en route to a favorable resolution by that Court."

WHEN THE Supreme Court flagrantly violates its own rule against the filing of a second motion for reconsideration, as in the case of the 16 pseudo-cities where it even allowed several such motions (resulting in triple somersaults), practicing lawyers can only shake their heads at the sheer tyranny of it. It is simply unfair and unjust that while lesser mortals have no choice but adhere to that rule under pain of contempt, demigods in the law profession could totally disregard that rule with impunity.

Sec. 2, Rule 52, Rules of Court (see also Sec. 2, Rule 56) plainly says: “No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.” By any interpretation, it is crystal clear that the filing of such second motion is prohibited, more so a third or fourth motion. But when the Supreme Court chooses to jettison that rule anyway, it unabashedly rationalizes malarkey in this wise: when we give due course to it, it is no longer prohibited!

If that does not insult the intelligence of lawyers practicing in this country, we wonder what will?

So then, that rule should now be read as meaning no second motion for reconsideration shall be entertained … unless the Court deems it amusing enough? But that is being silly. The real score is, it depends on who is filing that second, third or fourth motion. Retired Supreme Court justices who return to private practice have been known to easily find their way around the labyrinth en route to a favorable resolution by that Court. And lest we forget, lawyer Estelito Mendoza, too, who even has the gall to write personal missives to individual justices concerning his cases—definitely a no-no for the others in private law practice. (READ MORE: Vespera, 2011. SC unrestrained by any law. Inquirer.net. https://ift.tt/3Bfr8Rw)