Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SECURITIES v. PICOP RESOURCES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 207942 2015-01-12	YINLU BICOL MINING CORPORATION v. TRANS-ASIA OIL BERSAMIN, J.
It is true that Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18 of the OP Rules on Appeal authorizes the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. But that authority is conditioned upon the second motion being upon a highly meritorious ground.[32] The rule remains to be only one motion for reconsideration is allowed. In that regard, the Court stresses that the determination of whether or not the ground raised in the second motion for reconsideration was exceptionally meritorious lies solely belonged to the OP.[33] The CA could not usurp the OP's determination in order to make its own.
	GR No. 176951 2011-06-28	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
The Motion for Reconsideration, being a second motion for reconsideration, cannot be entertained. As to that, Section 2 [4] of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court is unqualified. The Court has firmly held that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, [5] and only for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave has been first obtained may a second motion for reconsideration be entertained. [6] The restrictive policy against a second motion for reconsideration has been re-emphasized in the recently promulgated Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, whose Section 3, Rule 15 states: Section 3. Second motion for reconsideration. - The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is reconsideration "in the higher interest of justice" when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court's declaration.
	GR No. 160506 2011-06-06	JOEB M. ALIVIADO v. PROCTER DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is immaterial that the Entry of Judgment was made without the Court having first resolved P&G's second motion for reconsideration. This is because the issuance of the entry of judgment is reckoned from the time the parties received a copy of the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration. The filing by P&G of several pleadings after receipt of the resolution denying its first motion for reconsideration does not in any way bar the finality or entry of judgment. Besides, to reckon the finality of a judgment from receipt of the denial of the second motion for reconsideration would be absurd. First, the Rules of Court and the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court prohibit the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. Second, some crafty litigants may resort to filing prohibited pleadings just to delay entry of judgment. Our ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. PICOP Resources, Inc. [19] is instructive, thus: In Dinglasan v. Court of Appeals, this Court explained the reason why it is unwise to reckon the period of finality of judgment from the denial of the second motion for reconsideration.
	GR No. 191084 2010-03-25	JOSELITO R. MENDOZA v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
Acting on petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the 1 December 2009 Resolution issued by the COMELEC Second Division, the COMELEC En Banc, as stated, initially issued the Resolution dated 8 February 2010, denying the motion for lack of merit and declaring the same resolution immediately executory. However, even before petitioner's filing of his Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution Promulgated on 8 February 2010 and the instant Petition for Certiorari with an Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Status Quo Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the record shows that the COMELEC En Banc issued the 10 February 2010 Resolution, ordering the re-hearing of the case on the ground that "there was no majority vote of the members obtained in the Resolution of the Commission En Banc promulgated on February 8, 2010." Having conceded one of the grounds subsequently raised in petitioner's Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution Promulgated on February 8, 2010, the COMELEC En Banc significantly failed to obtain the votes required under Section 5(a), Rule 3 of its own Rules of Procedure[4] for a second time.
	GR No. 173279 2009-03-30	MOTOROLA PHILIPPINES v. IMELDA B. AMBROCIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights. The bare invocation of "substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will compel the court to suspend the rules of procedure. Rather, the appellate court needs to assess if the appeal is absolutely meritorious on its face. Only after such finding, can it ease the often stringent rules of procedure.[12] (Emphasis supplied)