ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 154961.� February 18, 2003]
MUNICIPALITY OF JASAAN vs. GENTALLAN
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 18 2003 .
G.R. No. 154961 (The Municipality of Jasaan , represented by the Municipal Mayor, Huberto C. Paurom vs. Jocelyn Gentallan.)
In the Resolution dated September 24, 2002, the Court denied the Motion for Extension of Time dated 2 September filed by counsel for the petitioner for failure to serve a copy of the petition on the Court of Appeals.
The Motion for Reconsideration dated October 15, 2002 was denied after the Court found no compelling reason to warrant the reversal of the questioned resolution. The petition for review subsequently filed was thereby denied in view of the denial of the motion for extension of time. [1] cralaw
Petitioner filed the instant motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and the aforesaid motion for second reconsideration alleging that there is a similar petition filed by the Civil Service Commission, assailing the same Court of Appeals Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 61615). This was docketed as G.R. No. 152833 entitled "Civil Service Commission vs. Jocelyn S. Gentallan." A verification of our records reveal that in the Resolution dated November 26, 2002, the Court En Banc required private respondent Jocelyn Gentallan to comment on the petition for review filed by the Civil Service Commission.
The issue that needs to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not respondent is entitled to the representation and transportation allowances (RATA), backwages, and differential bonuses for the period that she was disqualified from assuming her post as the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Jasaan, Misamis Oriental.
On January 24, 2003, respondent filed a Comment (to the Pleadings Received on December 19, 2002) or to the petitioner's motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and the attached second motion for reconsideration.
It is a matter of public policy and sound practice that the Court does not grant a second motion for reconsideration except on meritorious grounds or when the circumstances warrant it. In the instant case, the petitioner has called our attention to the pendency of another case with this Court, G.R. No. 152833 involving the same parties, facts, issues and subject matter. So as not to foreclose any right for relief considering that it is the petitioner who is directly liable for the payment of respondent's money claims, it would be in the best interest of justice if the petitioner is allowed to ventilate its position extensively and for the Court to adequately pass upon the issues raised.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to GRANT the Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration and to ADMIT the aforesaid Second Motion for Reconsideration. The Comment filed by respondent dated December 26, 2002, is NOTED. The petition for Review filed on October 22, 2002 is REINSTATED. The respondent is directed to file a COMMENT on the petition within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Resolution dated 19 November 2002; Rollo, p. 60.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
