Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ORTIGAS v. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 169712 2009-01-20	MA. WENELITA S. TIRAZONA v. PHILIPPINE EDS TECHNO- SERVICE INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court explicitly decrees that no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. Accordingly, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, which shall not be allowed, except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have first been obtained.[11] In this case, we fail to find any such extraordinarily persuasive reason to allow Tirazona's Second Motion for Reconsideration.
	GR NO. 167022 2007-08-31	LICOMCEN INCORPORATED v. FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS NACHURA, J.
In sum, we find no reason to disturb the decision of the CA. It cannot be faulted for denying FSI's motion for reconsideration through a mere Minute Resolution, for as we held in Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco:[63]
	GR NO. 169277 2007-02-09	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. VICENTE K. UY CALLEJO, SR., J.
On October 19, 1998, the respondent and his co-owners filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the OP. On April 16, 2002, the President, through Deputy Executive Secretary Arthur P. Autea, issued an Order denying the October 19, 1998 second motion for reconsideration for being a prohibited pleading and for lack of merit.[30] Citing Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco,[31] the OP also declared that the Second Motion for Reconsideration was a prohibited pleading. Furthermore, Section 7 of A.O. No. 18 dated February 12, 1987 allows only one motion for reconsideration save for exceptionally meritorious cases.
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed[14] the concept of peopleï¿½s initiative from the United States where various State constitutions incorporate an initiative clause. In almost all States[15] which allow initiative petitions, the unbending requirement is that the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.[16]
	GR NO. 131547 2005-12-15	NICASIO I. ALCANTARA v. VICENTE C. PONCE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As for the motion of the Ponce Group for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, dated 17 November 1994, after the denial of their first motion for reconsideration, the same had been appropriately denied by this Court. Section 2, Rule 52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides that no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution shall be entertained;[80] thus, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Indeed, this Court does not discount instances when it may authorize the suspension of the rules of procedure so as to allow the resolution of a second motion for reconsideration,[81] but such authority may only be granted for extraordinarily persuasive reasons.[82] Unfortunately for the Ponce Group, this Court did not deem it appropriate to suspend the rules of procedure for their sake and disallowed the filing of their second motion for reconsideration.
	GR NOS. 138874-75 2005-08-21	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA PER CURIAM
At the inception, let it be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose on us the obligation to discuss and rule again on the grounds relied upon by the movant which are mere reiteration of the issues previously raised and thoroughly determined and evaluated in our Decision being questioned. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,[8] we ruled that, "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant."
	GR Nos. 138874-75 2005-07-21	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA PER CURIAM
At the inception, let it be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose on us the obligation to discuss and rule again on the grounds relied upon by the movant which are mere reiteration of the issues previously raised and thoroughly determined and evaluated in our Decision being questioned. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,[8] we ruled that, "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant."
	GR No. 159962 2004-12-16	MAYOR ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the onset, we must point out that this Court has long held the "piece-meal" imputation of a judgment by successive motions for reconsideration to be anathema.[48] However, as the final arbiter of all legal questions properly brought before it, our decision in any given case constitutes the law of that particular case,[49] from which there is no appeal. Thus, we have on occasion, for overriding and extraordinarily persuasive reasons, granted second motions for reconsideration. No such limitation, however, exists for the Secretary of Justice in this case. Resolutions or decisions rendered by the said office may be appealed to the Office of the President for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.[50]
	GR No. 152845 2003-08-05	DRIANITA BAGAOISAN v. NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION VITUG, J.
In passing, relative to petitioners' "Motion for an En Banc Resolution of the Case," it may be well to remind counsel, that the Court En Banc is not an appellate tribunal to which appeals from a Division of the Court may be taken. A Division of the Court is the Supreme Court as fully and veritably as the Court En Banc itself and a decision of its Division is as authoritative and final as a decision of the Court En Banc. Referrals of cases from a Division to the Court En Banc do not take place as just a matter of routine but only on such specified grounds as the Court in its discretion may allow.[16]