Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    EPIFANIO SAN JUAN, JR Vs JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ

    Uploaded by

    Mharey Almacha
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's certiorari petition was time-barred. Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are allowed under the rules, unlike motions for reconsideration of final orders which are prohibited. The 60-day period for filing a certiorari petition should be counted from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration, not subsequent motions, to avoid indefinite delays. A certiorari petition must state the dates of: 1) receiving notice of the order, 2) filing a motion for reconsideration, and 3) receiving notice of its denial, as these dates determine the petition's timeliness which must be within 60 days of the order. While second motions for reconsideration of inter

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    EPIFANIO SAN JUAN, JR Vs JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ

    Uploaded by

    Mharey Almacha
    51 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's certiorari petition was time-barred. Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are allowed under the rules, unlike motions for reconsideration of final orders which are prohibited. The 60-day period for filing a certiorari petition should be counted from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration, not subsequent motions, to avoid indefinite delays. A certiorari petition must state the dates of: 1) receiving notice of the order, 2) filing a motion for reconsideration, and 3) receiving notice of its denial, as these dates determine the petition's timeliness which must be within 60 days of the order. While second motions for reconsideration of inter

    Original Title

    EPIFANIO SAN JUAN, JR vs JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's certiorari petition was time-barred. Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are allowed under the rules, unlike motions for reconsideration of final orders which are prohibited. The 60-day period for filing a certiorari petition should be counted from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration, not subsequent motions, to avoid indefinite delays. A certiorari petition must state the dates of: 1) receiving notice of the order, 2) filing a motion for reconsideration, and 3) receiving notice of its denial, as these dates determine the petition's timeliness which must be within 60 days of the order. While second motions for reconsideration of inter

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views1 page

    EPIFANIO SAN JUAN, JR Vs JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ

    Uploaded by

    Mharey Almacha
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's certiorari petition was time-barred. Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are allowed under the rules, unlike motions for reconsideration of final orders which are prohibited. The 60-day period for filing a certiorari petition should be counted from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration, not subsequent motions, to avoid indefinite delays. A certiorari petition must state the dates of: 1) receiving notice of the order, 2) filing a motion for reconsideration, and 3) receiving notice of its denial, as these dates determine the petition's timeliness which must be within 60 days of the order. While second motions for reconsideration of inter

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Topic/s: Post-Judgment Remedies

    EPIFANIO SAN JUAN, JR vs JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ


    CALLEJO, SR., J.:
    ISSUE:
    WHETHER OR NOT THE SIXTY-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER
    RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT IS RECKONED FROM NOTICE OF DENIAL OF THE FIRST
    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER EVEN THOUGH A SECOND
    AND THIRD MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (WHICH ARE NOT PROHIBITED MOTIONS) OF THE
    SAME INTERLOCUTORY ORDER HAD BEEN FILED AND WERE LATER DENIED.

    Ruling:
    The petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in the appellate court was time-barred. The proscription
    against a pro forma motion applies only to a final resolution or order and not to an interlocutory one. The
    60-day period should not be reckoned from petitioner's receipt on June 11, 2004 of the denial of
    his May 7, 2004 second motion for reconsideration. The 60-day period shall be reckoned from the
    trial court's denial of his first motion for reconsideration, otherwise indefinite delays will ensue.

    There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65 of the
    Rules of Court for the nullification of a judgment, resolution or order: (1) the date when notice of the
    judgment, resolution or order was received; (2) when a motion for a new trial or reconsideration of the
    judgment, order or resolution was submitted; and (3) when notice of the denial thereof was received by
    petitioner.

    The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
    Court is for the purpose of determining its timeliness, considering that a petition is required to be filed not
    later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be nullified.

    In the case of University of Immaculate Concepcion v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, the
    December 2, 2003 Order of the trial court denying the motion of petitioner to consider insufficient or
    inadequate respondent's compliance with its November 22, 2002 Order is interlocutory. The order does
    not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the task of the court of adjudicating the parties'
    contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other but obviously indicates that
    other things remain to be done. Such order may not be questioned except only as part of an appeal that
    may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. It bears stressing however that
    while the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner assailing the December 2, 2003 Order of the trial
    court based on the same grounds as those alleged in his first motion is not pro forma, such second
    motion for reconsideration can nevertheless be denied on the ground that it is merely a rehash or a mere
    reiteration of grounds and arguments already passed upon and resolved by the court. Such a motion
    cannot be rejected on the ground that a second motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is
    forbidden by law or by the Rules of Court

    You might also like