Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MA. WENELITA S. TIRAZONA v. PHILIPPINE EDS TECHNO- SERVICE INC.

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 188747 2014-01-29	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. CARLITO DEL ROSARIO PEREZ, J.
In Tirazona v. Phillippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET, Inc.),[31] we denied the award of separation pay to an employee who was dismissed from employment due to loss of trust and confidence.
	GR Nos. 178034 & 178117 2013-10-17	ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE v. EULALIO GANZON REYES, J.
In a line of cases, the Court has then entertained and granted second motions for reconsideration "in the higher interest of substantial justice," as allowed under the Internal Rules when the assailed decision is "legally erroneous," "patently unjust" and "potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties." In Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET, Inc.),[59] we also explained that a second motion for reconsideration may be allowed in instances of "extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have been obtained."[60] In Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[61] we allowed a second motion for reconsideration as the issue involved therein was a matter of public interest, as it pertained to the proper application of a basic constitutionally-guaranteed right in the government's implementation of its agrarian reform program. In San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC,[62] the Court set aside the decisions of the LA and the NLRC that favored claimants-security guards upon the Court's review of San Miguel Corporation's second motion for reconsideration. In Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, et al.,[63] the Court en banc reversed on a third motion for reconsideration the ruling of the Court's Division on therein private respondents' claim for wages and monetary benefits.
	AM No. 11-10-1-SC 2012-03-13	IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES BRION, J.
It must be emphasized that even in Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc., (PET, Inc.),[34] a case cited by the majority Resolution, the Court found that unless there is an extraordinarily persuasive reason to entertain a second motion for reconsideration, it must be denied outright for lack of merit: 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. In this case, we fail to find any such extraordinarily persuasive reason to allow Tirazona's Second Motion for Reconsideration.