This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-04-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| True it is that in a number of instances, the Court has relaxed the governing periods of appeal in order to serve substantial justice. But this we have done only in exceptional cases. Sadly, the instant case is definitely not one of them.[38] | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Hence, the Court of Appeals was correct in denying Badiola's second motion for reconsideration. Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court explicitly declares that no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. Such motion is a prohibited pleading, which shall not be allowed, except for ordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have first been obtained.[57] Badiola, however, did not seek any leave to file her second motion for reconsideration nor offer any explanation or reason whatsoever to exempt the same from the general prohibition on second motions for reconsideration. | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| To rule otherwise would be an injustice against respondents because as held in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[9] "just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so also does the prevailing party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of a decision in his favor."[10] | |||||