This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-08-06 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| This Court allows a liberal construction of this rule where the interest of substantial justice will be served and where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the court,[20] as in the instant case. Thus, the Sandiganbayan correctly held that:Apparent from the foregoing is the fact that while the pre-trial has effectively been terminated, the Court gave both the prosecution and the accused the opportunity to submit comments to the Pre-Trial Order or to modify their submissions or in some instances, even to withdraw the stipulations they made during the pre-trial. The Court's position is consistent with the exercise of its discretion to decide how best to dispense justice in accordance with the circumstances of the proceedings before it. The decision to grant the prosecution's motion for additional marking of documentary exhibits is another exercise of this judicial prerogative, which prerogative was made known to the parties in the Pre-Trial Order dated November 7, 2005, when the Court stated that such was subject to modification "in order to prevent manifest injustice.[21] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Respondent received the NLRC Decision on July 2, 1998, hence she had 10 days or until July 12, 1998 within which to move for its reconsideration. However, the motion for reconsideration was filed only on July 22, 1998. A motion for reconsideration filed out of time is a pro forma motion which does not toll the running of the reglementary period.[22] Moreover, in the absence of a motion for reconsideration filed within the reglementary period, the assailed order, resolution, or decision of the NLRC becomes final and executory. | |||||