THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 201622. October 4, 2017.]

ANGELITO L. CRISTOBAL , petitioner, vs . PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,

AND LUCIO TAN , respondents.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

Where a tribunal renders a decision substantially reversing itself on a matter, a

motion for reconsideration seeking reconsideration of this reversal, for the rst time, is
not a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 assailing the Court of Appeals
Resolutions dated January 10, 2012 2 and April 18, 2012 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 122034
dismissing petitioner Angelito L. Cristobal's (Cristobal) Petition for Certiorari for having
been filed out of time.
Cristobal became a pilot for respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) on October
16, 1971. 4 In May 1998, in line with a downsizing program of PAL, 5 Cristobal applied
for leave without pay from PAL to enter into a four (4)-year contract with EVA Air. 6 PAL
approved the application and advised him that he would continue to accrue seniority
during his leave and that he could opt to retire from PAL during this period. 7 In a letter
dated March 10, 1999, Cristobal advised PAL of his intent to retire. 8 In response, PAL
advised him that he was deemed to have lost his employment status on June 9, 1998. 9
Thus, on May 12, 1999, Cristobal led a complaint with the National Labor Relations
Commission. 1 0
In a Decision 1 1 dated December 1, 1999, the Labor Arbiter found Cristobal's
dismissal illegal. On the matter of retirement bene ts, the Labor Arbiter noted PAL's
claim that Cristobal could only be entitled to a retirement pay of P5,000.00 per year,
pursuant to the Philippine Airlines, Inc.-Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines
(PAL-ALPAP) Retirement Plan of 1967. However, he found that Cristobal's retirement
bene ts should not be less than the amount provided under the law. Thus, the Labor
Arbiter found him entitled to an amount computed pursuant to Article 287 of the Labor
Code. 1 2 The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter Decision read:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered nding the dismissal of the
complainant illegal.
The respondent is further ordered to pay the complainant:
1. Retirement pay in the amount of P1,575,964.30;
2. Moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00;
3. Exemplary damages in the amount of P500,000.00;
4. Attorney's fees in an amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the
total award in favor of the complainant.
Respondent is likewise ordered to give and grant to complainant all other
bene ts he is entitled to under the law and existing Collective Bargaining
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Agreement.
SO ORDERED. 1 3
In a Decision 1 4 dated September 30, 2010, the National Labor Relations
Commission a rmed the Labor Arbiter Decision but reduced the award of moral and
exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each. 1 5 On Cristobal's retirement pay, it noted
PAL's argument that any retirement bene ts should be pursuant to the terms of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement and a rmed the Labor Arbiter's computation. The
dispositive portion of the National Labor Relations Commission Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is, hereby, AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION to the effect that the award for moral and exemplary damages
is hereby reduced to P100,000.00 each.
SO ORDERED. 1 6
Cristobal led a Motion for Partial Reconsideration 1 7 on November 12, 2010,
raising the following assignment of errors:
1. Since the Honorable Commission found that Respondents-Appellants
acted in bad faith, the award of Php500,000.00 each for Moral and
Exemplary Damages should be reinstated, instead of the reduced amount
of Php100,000.00.
2. The monetary award should include a legal interest considering the long
delay.
3. Respondents-Appellants should be jointly and severally be (sic) liable in
view of the bad faith, as per findings of this Honorable Commission. 1 8
PAL also led a motion for reconsideration, claiming that it was error to nd that
Cristobal was illegally dismissed and to base his retirement bene ts on Article 287 of
the Labor Code. 1 9
The National Labor Relations Commission resolved both motions in its Decision
2 0 dated May 31, 2011, deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages and
reducing the amount of Cristobal's retirement bene ts. It agreed that Cristobal's
retirement bene ts should not be computed in accordance with Article 287 of the
Labor Code as Cristobal was not yet 60 years old when he retired on March 10, 1999.
2 1 The National Labor Relations Commission cited Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Airline
Pilots Association of the Philippines 2 2 to support this position and held that Cristobal
was entitled to receive only P5,000.00 per year of service, under the 1967 PAL-ALPAP
Retirement Plan:
Nevertheless, the contention of respondents that complainant's
retirement bene ts should not be computed in accordance with Article 287 of
the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7641, the New Retirement Law,
is meritorious. In their motion, the respondents cite the Supreme Court's decision
in Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (G.R.
No. 143686, 15 January 2002), In said case, the Supreme Court categorically
sustained respondent PAL's position and ruled that Article 287 of the Labor
Code does not apply to PAL pilots who, without reaching the age of sixty (60),
retire pursuant to the provisions of the 1967 PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan. We
have noted that complainant never refuted respondents' allegation that he has
not reached the age of sixty (60) years when he opted to retire on 10 March
1999.
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Hence, PAL pilots who retire without reaching the age of 60 are entitled to
claim retirement bene ts from two (2) retirement plans: a) 1967 PAL-ALPAP
Retirement Plan of 1967, and b) PAL Pilot[s'] Retirement Bene t Plan. The
amount of P5,000.00 for every year of service provided under the 1967 PAL-
ALPAP Retirement Plan would be in addition to the retirement bene ts provided
by the PAL Pilot[s'] Retirement Benefit Plan.
In their supplement to motion for reconsideration, respondents submit
copies of the acknowledgment receipt for P5,530,214.67 signed by Ma. Pilar M.
Cristobal on 29 June 1999 as well as Cashier's Checks issued by Metrobank all
dated 28 June 1999 to complainant Angelito L. Cristobal in the amount of
P5,346,085.23, P93,579.68 and P90,549.76. These amounts were acknowledged
to have been paid by and received from the PAL PILOT[S'] RETIREMENT
BOARD.
Accordingly, complainant is only entitled to receive retirement bene ts
from the 1967 PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan in an amount equal to P5,000.00 for
every year of service. In this connection, the moral and exemplary damages
awarded to complainant has (sic) no legal and factual basis and must be
deleted. 2 3
The dispositive portion of this May 31, 2011 Decision read:
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the motion for partial reconsideration
led by complainant is DENIED. The motion for reconsideration led by
respondents is partially GRANTED.
The award of moral and exemplary damages is DELETED.
The respondents are directed to pay complainant the retirement bene ts
pursuant only to the 1967 PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan in the amount of one
hundred forty thousand pesos (P140,000.00).
The other findings are reiterated.
SO ORDERED. 2 4
On June 24, 2011, Cristobal led his Motion for Reconsideration, 2 5 seeking
reconsideration of the reduction of retirement bene ts. He pointed out that the PAL
Pilots Retirement Bene t Plan is different from the PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan, and
that it is an investment plan:
It would appear that in reaching its Decision, the Honorable Commission
took into consideration the fact that the complainant already received
P5,530,214.67 paid for and received from the PAL PILOTS RETIREMENT
BENEFIT PLAN. Complainant begs [to] submit that this Honorable Commission
committed serious error in taking into consideration in reducing the retirement
bene ts from the PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan. The PAL PILOTS RETIREMENT
BENEFIT PLAN is totally different from the PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan.
Moreover, the PAL PILOTS RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN is a misnomer.
It is not really a retirement plan but rather it[']s an investment plan where the
funds come from the contributions of each pilot deducted from their monthly
gross pay and upon retirement the pilot receives the full amount of his
contribution. Thus, it is a mistake [to] reduce the retirement bene ts of the
complainant from the PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan because the complainant
already received his supposed retirement bene ts (which should be investment)
from the PAL PILOTS RETIREMENT BENEFIT PALN. 2 6
In its Resolution 2 7 dated August 24, 2011, the National Labor Relations
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Commission denied Cristobal's Motion for Reconsideration, deeming it a second
motion for reconsideration of its May 31, 2011 Decision. 2 8 The dispositive portion of
this Resolution read:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, complainant's motion for reconsideration
which we treat as a second motion for reconsideration is hereby DISMISSED.
Let this case be dropped from the calendar of the Commission.
SO ORDERED. 2 9
On November 14, 2011, Cristobal led his Petition for Certiorari before the Court
of Appeals, which was dismissed in the Court of Appeals January 10, 2012 Resolution.
3 0 The Court of Appeals accepted the National Labor Relations Commission's premise
that petitioner's June 24, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration was a second motion for
reconsideration. Thus, it did not toll petitioner's period to le a petition for certiorari
assailing the May 31, 2011 Decision. Consequently, the petition for certiorari was led
out of time. The Court of Appeals also held that the petition did not contain copies of
the pertinent supporting documents. The dispositive portion of this Resolution read:
IN VIEW of all the foregoing patent in rmities, the petition is
DISMISSED .
SO ORDERED. 3 1
Thus, on June 13, 2012, petitioner led his Petition for Review on Certiorari 32
before this Court. Thereafter, there was an exchange of pleadings. 3 3
Petitioner points out that his November 12, 2010 Partial Motion for
Reconsideration only assailed the National Labor Relations Commission May 31, 2011
Decision, which reduced the award of moral and exemplary damages. On the other
hand, his June 24, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration assailed the reduction of his
retirement benefits. 3 4 Moreover, the ling of a motion for reconsideration to afford the
National Labor Relations Commission an opportunity to correct itself on the matter of
retirement bene ts was a condition sine qua non in instituting a petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals. 3 5 As for the attachment of relevant records, petitioner
argues that the main issue in his petition was whether or not the National Labor
Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in treating his motion for
reconsideration as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. Likewise, he adds
that the Court of Appeals should have been more liberal and should have ordered him
to submit documents, instead of dismissing his motion outright. Petitioner further
discussed how the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of
discretion in reducing his retirement benefits. 3 6
Respondents insist that petitioner's June 24, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration is
a prohibited second motion for reconsideration, which did not toll his period to
question the May 31, 2011 Decision. Thus, petitioner's petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals was led out of time. Respondents call attention to the fact that the
National Labor Relations Commission already rejected petitioner's argument against
the reduction of retirement bene ts and claim that petitioner's June 24, 2011 Motion
for Reconsideration repeated his arguments in his Opposition. 3 7
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the June 24, 2011
Motion for Reconsideration led by petitioner Angelito L. Cristobal assailing the
National Labor Relations Commission May 31, 2011 Decision was a prohibited second
motion for reconsideration.
This Court grants the petition.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Rule VII, Section 15 of the National Labor Relations Commission Rules of
Procedure provides:
Section 15. Motions for Reconsideration. — Motion for reconsideration of
any decision, resolution or order of the Commission shall not be entertained
except when based on palpable or patent errors; provided that the motion is
under oath and led within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of decision,
resolution or order, with proof of service that a copy of the same has been
furnished, within the reglementary period, the adverse party; and provided
further, that only one such motion from the same party shall be entertained.
The National Labor Relations Commission Rules of Procedure prohibits a party
from questioning a decision, resolution, or order, twice. In other words, this rule
prohibits the same party from assailing the same judgment. However, a decision
substantially reversing a determination in a prior decision is a discrete decision from
the earlier one. Thus, in Poliand Industrial Ltd. v. National Development Co. , 3 8 this Court
held:
Ordinarily, no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or nal
resolution by the same party shall be entertained. Essentially, however, the
instant motion is not second motion for reconsideration since the viable relief it
seeks call for the review, not of the Decision dated August 22, 2005, but the
November 23, 2005 Resolution which delved for the rst time on the issue of the
reckoning date of the computation of interest . . . (Citation omitted)
This Court ruled similarly in Solidbank Corp. v. Court of Appeals , 3 9 where the
Labor Arbiter dismissed a labor complaint but awarded the employee separation pay,
compensatory bene t, Christmas bonus, and moral and exemplary damages. This was
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission by both parties. The National
Labor Relations Commission rendered a Decision a rming the Labor Arbiter Decision
but modifying it by deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals ruled that the employee had been illegally dismissed and, considering
the cessation of the employer's operations, awarded the employee separation pay,
backwages, compensatory bene t, Christmas bonus, unpaid salary, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees. Then, the employer bank led a Motion for
Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, while the employee
led a Motion for Clari cation and/or Partial Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of
Appeals then issued an Amended Decision, modifying the amount awarded as
separation pay, backwages, and unpaid salary. Afterwards, the employee led another
Motion for Reconsideration/Clari cation, and the Court of Appeals again corrected the
amounts awarded as separation pay, backwages, and unpaid salary. In its petition
assailing the Court of Appeals Resolution, the employer bank claimed that the Court of
Appeals erred in granting the employee's second motion for reconsideration, a
prohibited pleading. This Court held:
The Amended Decision is an
entirely new decision which
supersedes the original decision,
for which a new motion for
reconsideration may be filed
again.
Anent the issue of Lazaro's "second" motion for reconsideration, we
disagree with the bank's contention that it is disallowed by the Rules of Court.
Upon thorough examination of the procedural history of this case, the "second"
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 motion does not partake the nature of a prohibited pleading because the
Amended Decision is an entirely new decision which supersedes the original, for
which a new motion for reconsideration may be filed again. 4 0
In Barba v. Liceo De Cagayan University , 4 1 where the Court of Appeals denied a
motion for reconsideration from an amended decision on the ground that it was a
prohibited second motion for reconsideration, this Court held that the prohibition
against a second motion for reconsideration contemplates the same party assailing
the same judgment:
Prefatorily, we rst discuss the procedural matter raised by respondent
that the present petition is led out of time. Respondent claims that petitioner's
motion for reconsideration from the Amended Decision is a second motion for
reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading. Respondent's assertion,
however, is misplaced for it should be noted that the CA's Amended Decision
totally reversed and set aside its previous ruling. Section 2, Rule 52 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that no second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or nal resolution by the same party shall be
entertained. This contemplates a situation where a second motion for
reconsideration is led by the same party assailing the same judgment or nal
resolution. Here, the motion for reconsideration of petitioner was led after the
appellate court rendered an Amended Decision totally reversing and setting
aside its previous ruling. Hence, petitioner is not precluded from ling another
motion for reconsideration from the Amended Decision which held that the
labor tribunals lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint for constructive
dismissal. The period to le an appeal should be reckoned not from the denial
of her motion for reconsideration of the original decision, but from the date of
petitioner's receipt of the notice of denial of her motion for reconsideration from
Amended Decision. And as petitioner received notice of the denial of her motion
for reconsideration from the Amended Decision on September 23, 2010 and
led her petition on November 8, 2010, or within the extension period granted by
the Court to file the petition, her petition was filed on time. 4 2
Here, the National Labor Relations Commission May 31, 2011 Decision
substantially modi ed its September 30, 2010 Decision. Thus, petitioner was not
precluded from seeking reconsideration of the new decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission, and it was clearly an error for the Court of Appeals to nd that
petitioner's petition for certiorari was filed out of time on that ground.
As for the purported failure to attach the records necessary to resolve the
petition, in Wack Wack Golf & Country Club v. National Labor Relations Commission , 4 3
this Court held:
In Novelty Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , the Court recognized the
authority of the general manager to sue on behalf of the corporation and to sign
the requisite veri cation and certi cation of non-forum shopping. The general
manager is also one person who is in the best position to know the state of
affairs of the corporation. It was also error for the CA not to admit the requisite
proof of authority when in the Novelty case, the Court ruled that the subsequent
submission of the requisite documents constituted substantial compliance with
procedural rules. There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and
substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules
of procedure in the interest of justice. While it is true that rules of procedure are
intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and while the swift
unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be
met at the expense of substantial justice. It was, therefore, reversible error for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the CA to have dismissed the petition for certiorari before it. The ordinary
recourse for us to take is to remand the case to the CA for proper disposition on
the merits; however, considering that the records are now before us, we deem it
necessary to resolve that instant case in order to ensure harmony in the rulings
and expediency. 4 4
Thus, this Court nds that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in
dismissing the petition outright, considering the circumstances of this case.
Petitioner raises in issue whether or not the PAL Pilots Retirement Bene t Plan is
part of the retirement bene ts that should be computed in comparing the retirement
bene ts accorded to him under the Labor Code as against what he is entitled to under
PAL policy. However, the matter of retirement bene ts is not addressed in
respondent's memorandum. It would better serve the interest of substantial justice to
remand this case to the Court of Appeals to allow the parties to fully discuss this issue.
WHEREFORE , the assailed January 10, 2012 and April 18, 2012 Resolutions of
the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The Court of Appeals is directed
t o REINSTATE the petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 122034, for
further proceedings.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, Jardeleza, * Martires and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated October 2, 2017.
1. Rollo, pp. 8-42.
2 . Id. at 43-45. The Resolutions were penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and
concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Romeo F. Barza of the Ninth
Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. Id. at 46-47. The Resolutions were penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and
concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Romeo F. Barza of the Former
Ninth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

4. Id. at 154, NLRC Decision.

5. Rollo, p. 10.
6. Id. at 70.
7. Id. at 71.
8. Id. at 73.

9. Id. at 74.
10. Id. at 11.
11. Id. at 154-166. The Decision was penned by Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati.
12. Id. at 162.

13. Id. at 166.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 14. Id. at 320-335. The Decision was penned by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and was
concurred in by Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog, III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. of the
Third Division, National Labor Relations Commission.
15. Id. at 334.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 353-359.
18. Id. at 354.

19. Id. at 339.

20. Id. at 337-348.
21. Id. at 344.
22. 424 Phil. 356 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

23. Id. at 344-347.

24. Id. at 347.
25. Id. at 291-298.
26. Id. at 294-295.
27. Id. at 350-352.

28. Id. at 350.

29. Id. at 351.
30. Id. at 43-45.
31. Id. at 44.
32. Id. at 8-42.

33. Id. at 378-403, respondents' Comment and rollo, pp. 435-447, petitioner's Reply.
34. Id. at 436-437.
35. Id. at 438.
36. Id. at 439.

37. Id. at 382-384.

38. 523 Phil. 368 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Special Second Division].
3 9 . G.R. Nos. 166581 & 167187, December 7, 2015,
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/december2015/166581.pdf> [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division].

40. Id. at 11.

41. 699 Phil. 622 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, First Division].
42. Id. at 639.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 43. 496 Phil. 180 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Second Division].
44. Id. at 192.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com