ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 138101.December 13, 1999]

SANCANCO CANNING CORPORATION vs. NLRC, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 13, 1999.

G.R. No. 138101(Sancanco Canning Corporation and Santa Monica Foods Corporation represented by Gary Que Engkiat vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Samahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Sancanco-National Federation, Teodora Abang, et al.)

On 16 June 1999 we dismissed the petition dubbed "Petition for Review on Certiorari" filed by herein petitioners specifically for -

x x x x failure to give a written explanation on why the service of the petition on respondents and on the National Labor Relations Commission was not done personally in accordance with Section 11, Rule 13. Moreover, petitioners also failed to adduce sufficient reasons to warrant the premature filing of the petition without filing the requisite motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision of the National Labor Relations Commission prior to availment of the special civil action for certiorari or to bring the case within the recognized exceptions to this rule. ¹ Resolution dated 16 June 1999; Rollo, pp. 86-87.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above resolution giving a belated explanation why service of the petition was not done personally and pointing out that the petition was not prematurely filed as in fact two (2) Motions for Reconsideration were filed before respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) before resort to this Court was made.

We denied this Motion with finality on 15 September 1999 for failure of petitioners to adduce sufficient compelling reason or reasons to warrant the reconsideration sought.

In this Second Motion for Reconsideration, filed without leave of Court, petitioners pray anew for reconsideration on the ground that their petition was not prematurely filed. However, in a sudden turnaround from their First Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners now claim that the Affidavit of Service attached to their petition explained why service of the petition on respondents was done through registered mail and not personally.

Although Sec. 2 of Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure categorically provides that "[n]o second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained," nevertheless we reexamined the records for the satisfaction of petitioner-movants.

Our resolution of 16 June 1999 cites two (2) grounds for the dismissal of the petition, namely: (a) failure to give written explanation why service of the petition was not done personally; and, (b) premature filing. While the petition may not have been prematurely filed, yet, a reconsideration of our dismissal is not still warranted.

Our dismissal was not only based on prematurity but the failure of petitioner to give written explanation why service was not done personally as required by Sec. 11, Rule 13, of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides:

Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. - Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service of filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed (underscoring supplied).

Petitioners' claim that they complied with the foregoing requirement is belied by the Affidavit of Service executed by the Legal Assistant of petitioners' counsel, a certain Purita P. Dalapnas. The Affidavit simply stated that on 20 April 1999 she sent by registered mail with return card copies of the PETITION FOR REVIEW to all those indicated as copy furnished and the original postal registry receipts posted opposite their names. ² Rollo, p. 25. The Affidavit did not state any explanation why service of the petition was not done personally.

ACCORDINGLY, the Second Motion for Reconsideration dated 19 November 1999 filed by petitioners Sancanco Canning Corporation and Santa Monica Foods Corporation is DENIED. This DENIAL is FINAL and no further pleadings will be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.

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