The Rules of Court are explicit that a Second Motion for Reconsideration or MR of a judgment or final resolution, filed by the same party, shall not be allowed.
However, the rule against Second MR is subject to narrow exceptions anchored on the higher interest of justice — Section 3, Rule 15 of A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC (Internal Rules of the Supreme Court) provides:
Section 3. Second motion for reconsideration. — The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of justice” when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. xxx
On 6 December 2022, the SC en banc issued a Resolution for the consolidated cases of Republic v. Romero II (G.R. 209180) and Romero v. Romero II (G.R. 209254), finding sufficient cause to grant a Second MR.
As a background, in 1998, Mr. Romero filed a petition for a declaration of nullity of marriage against his spouse before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between the spouse null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Republic and Ms. Romero filed separate petitions for review on certiorari before the SC. The petitions were then consolidated. As it was, the Supreme Court granted the consolidated petitions, and cited Republic v. CA and Molina, in holding that the three essential elements of psychological incapacity have not been established, namely: gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence.
In his First MR, Mr. Romero argued that the allegations raised by his spouse and the Republic were contrary to the evidence on record. Subsequently, Mr. Romero filed a Manifestation and Supplement to the First MR, where he averred that the Metropolitan Tribunal had declared his canonical marriage with his spouse null and void. However, the relevant Canonical Judgment was not annexed to the Manifestation due to the alleged disclosure restrictions imposed by the Archdiocese of Manila. The First MR was thus denied.
Later, Mr. Romero filed his Motion for Leave to Admit Second MR, and the Second MR, where he explained that the prohibition which prevented him from submitting the Canonical Judgment to the Court had been lifted.
The Court then remanded the consolidated petitions to the CA to establish the authenticity of the Canonical Judgment. The CA later declared that the authenticity of the Canonical Judgment and the Decree of Finality has been duly established.
In September 2022, the SC Special First Division granted Mr. Romero’s Manifestation with Alternative Motion to refer the Second MR to the Court En Banc.
Thus, the 2022 Resolution was issued reconsidering the previous decision, in light of the recent ruling in Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. 196359, 11 May 2021) and with due consideration of the Conclusion of the Canonical Judgment and the Decree of Finality which have been authenticated before the CA.
The High Court stressed that giving due course to the Second MR is necessary “to prevent the continued misapplication of the Molina guidelines, which… have been carefully clarified and recalibrated by the Court en banc in the supervening case of Tan-Andal.”
The Court explained that the ruling in Tan-Andal is an extraordinary and compelling circumstance that justified the admission and consideration of the Second MR to avert a legally erroneous and patently unjust outcome, as the clarified guidelines set forth in Tan-Andal significantly impact the manner through which psychological incapacity may be established.
Mr. Romero did not give up. He fought a good fight — initial adverse resolution notwithstanding. Not only did he succeed in somewhat reconciling canonical laws with civil law, but he also regained his freedom against a shackling marriage.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cabdo@divinalaw.com.