ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 146820July 2, 2001]

NLRC, et al. v. CA et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 2 2001.

G.R. No. 146820(National Labor Relations Commission, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

This Resolves petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of 26 February 2001 1 Rollo, p. 105.and Motion To Admit Reconsideration to Resolution dated April 4, 2001.

After receiving on 31 January 2001 the resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 56226 denying their Motion for Reconsideration filed on 17 April 2001 petitioners (Grand Inihaw Rotunda, Felipe Jamoso, Trinidad Cruz and Dalmacio Patawaran) filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari with Notice of Appeal and Pay Corresponding Docket, Deposit and other Legal Fees. However, on 26 February 2001 petitioners' motion for extension of time was denied for their "failure to show that they have not lost the fifteen-day reglementary period within which to appeal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, in view of the lack of statement of the date of filing of the Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals." 2 Id. p. 9.

On 4 April 2001 petitioners' Petition for Certiorari, which this Court treated as a petition for review was likewise denied for having been filed late and for submitting an improper verification as the affiant therein failed to state the basis of his averment that the allegations in the petition were true and correct. 3 Id., p. 103.

In their Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of 26 February 2001 petitioners claim that contrary to the aforesaid Resolution of the Court, they did state the date of filing of their motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals in their motion for extension of time to file the petition. Thus -

This case has been decided by the Court of Appeals dated September 4, 2000 declaring null and void the decisions of both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission of Quezon City, received by counsel of private respondents (now petitioners herein) on September 21, 2000. Then private respondents (now petitioners) through counsel filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration dated October 4, 2000 . The then petitioner (now private respondent) filed his comment on the motion for reconsideration dated November 6, 2000, received by counsel on November 9, 2000. The herein petitioners filed their Reply (to the then petitioners comment) on November 15, 2000. Soon thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution, dated January 25, 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration received on January 31, 2001. Hence, this motion is filed within the reglementary period of 15 days from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 4 Id., p. 3.

When filing a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari the date of receipt of the assailed decision or resolution subject of the petition as well as the actual date of filing the motion for reconsideration thereof must be specifically alleged by petitioner. To simply state that petitioner has "filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration dated October 4, 2000" is not in compliance with the procedural requirements of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

At any rate, even if the Court considers the instant petition as timely filed it must still be denied on the ground of improper verification. The verification shows that the affiant failed to state the basis of his averment that the allegations were true and correct. 5 Id., p. 32.Furthermore, in their Motion to Admit Reconsideration to Resolution dated April 4, 2001 petitioners were unable to present any compelling reason which would warrant a reconsideration of the aforementioned Resolution denying their Petition for Certiorari.

WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of 26 February 2001 and Motion to Admit Reconsideration to Resolution dated April 4, 2001 are both DENIED WITH FINALITY there being NO COMPELLING REASON to warrant reconsideration.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com