Finality of Judgments: The Prohibition Against Second Motions for Reconsideration

The Rules of Court are strict: a party gets only one motion for reconsideration. Filing a second one is not just discouraged—it is prohibited, and it does not stop the clock on the period to appeal. In Obando v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 139760, October 5, 2001), the Supreme Court applied this rule firmly, reminding litigants that procedural rules exist to ensure the orderly and speedy resolution of cases.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from two consolidated probate proceedings involving the estates of Jose Figueras and his second wife, Alegria Strebel Vda. de Figueras. Felizardo Obando and Eduardo Figueras were appointed co-administrators of the consolidated estates.

In 1991, Felizardo moved to remove Eduardo as co-administrator. Eduardo and intervenor Fritz Strebel, in turn, moved to remove Felizardo. In December 1997, the probate court denied Eduardo's removal and granted the motion to remove Felizardo. Felizardo's first motion for reconsideration was denied in February 1998. The court later dismissed the petition for probate of Alegria's will after finding it was a forgery.

Felizardo then filed another motion for reconsideration—his second—which the court denied for being exactly that: a prohibited second motion. He filed yet another motion, his third, which was also denied. Only in August 1998, six months after the denial of his first motion, did Felizardo file a notice of appeal. The probate court denied due course to the appeal, holding that the second and third motions for reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period, so the earlier orders had become final.

The Issue

The central question was whether Felizardo's notice of appeal was filed on time, given that he had filed multiple motions for reconsideration before appealing.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against Felizardo. Under Rule 37, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a second motion for reconsideration shall not be allowed. Since Felizardo filed not only a second but a third motion for reconsideration, and since the period to appeal began to run from the denial of his first motion, his notice of appeal—filed six months later—was correctly denied for being late.

The Court also rejected Felizardo's plea for liberal construction of the rules. Liberal application is the exception, not the rule, and nothing in the case justified it.

Certiorari Cannot Replace a Lost Appeal

The Court likewise held that the special civil action for certiorari was no longer available. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. A basic requirement for certiorari is that there be no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since Felizardo let the appeal period lapse, he could not resort to certiorari to revive his case.

Practical Takeaways

• Only one motion for reconsideration is allowed. A second motion for reconsideration is prohibited under Rule 37, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
• A prohibited motion does not stop the appeal clock. Filing a second or third motion for reconsideration will not toll the reglementary period to appeal. The period runs from the denial of the first motion.
• Act fast. The period to appeal is short. Do not assume that filing more motions will buy time—it will likely forfeit the right to appeal entirely.
• Certiorari is not a fallback. If the appeal period lapses, certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
• Procedural rules matter. Courts may relax rules only in exceptional circumstances, but litigants should never presume that leniency will be granted.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.