IN a Resolution dated June 26, 2023 in G.R. No. 235316 (Municipality of Makati [now City of Makati] v. Municipality of Taguig [now City of Taguig), the Supreme Court’s Special Third Division resolved to deny the City of Makati’s second Omnibus Motion, which, among others, sought the Court’s leave to file and admit its second Motion for Reconsideration.
Consequently, the Court noted without action the City of Makati’s second Motion for Reconsideration challenging the Court’s Decision dated December 1, 2021. A second motion for reconsideration is generally prohibited under the Rules of Court.
In the same Resolution, the Court also noted without action the City of Taguig’s Manifestation with Motion, which prayed that the City of Makati and its Mayor be required to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for making certain claims in relation to the present case.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the City of Taguig against the City of Makati in connection with its territorial dispute over the areas comprising the Enlisted Men’s Barangays (EMBOs) and the entirety of Fort Andres Bonifacio.
On December 1, 2021, the Court’s Third Division denied the City of Makati’s Petition for Review on Certiorari and reinstated with modification the July 8, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig as follows:
Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation, consisting of Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, is confirmed to be part of the territory of the City of Taguig.
The Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated August 2, 1994 issued by the RTC of Pasig, explicitly referring to Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, comprising Fort Bonifacio, be made PERMANENT insofar as it enjoined the Municipality, now City of Makati, from exercising jurisdiction over, making improvements on, or otherwise treating as part of its territory, Parcels 3 and 4, Psu-2031, comprising Fort Bonifacio.
Ordering the City of Makati to pay the costs of the suit.
On September 28, 2022, the Court, in a Resolution, denied with finality the City of Makati’s Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration of the December 1, 2021 Decision and to refer the case to the Court En Banc. The Court reasoned that the basic issues raised in the Omnibus Motion have been duly considered and passed upon by the Court in the assailed Decision. The Supreme Court likewise stressed that the Court En Banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed. The same Resolution then directed that no further pleadings will be entertained in the case, and that an Entry of Judgment be issued immediately.
The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload a copy of the ruling once it receives a copy from the Office of the Clerk of Court – Third Division. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
metrosundaily
