When a Motion for Reconsideration Is Not a Second Bite at the Apple

The Supreme Court has clarified an important procedural point for litigants before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): a motion for reconsideration is not automatically a prohibited "second motion" if it challenges a decision that substantially reversed an earlier ruling. In Cristobal v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 201622, October 4, 2017), the Court ruled that a party may properly seek reconsideration of a new decision that materially changes a prior outcome, even if the party had already moved for reconsideration of the earlier decision.

Facts of the Case

Angelito L. Cristobal, a pilot for Philippine Airlines (PAL), took a leave of absence in 1998 to work with EVA Air under a four-year contract. PAL approved the leave and allowed him to accrue seniority. In March 1999, Cristobal notified PAL of his intent to retire. PAL responded that he was deemed to have lost his employment status in June 1998, prompting Cristobal to file a complaint with the NLRC.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in 1999 that Cristobal's dismissal was illegal and awarded him retirement pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the ruling in September 2010 but reduced the damages. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. In May 2011, the NLRC issued a new decision that deleted the damages entirely and reduced Cristobal's retirement benefits to P140,000.00, citing the 1967 PAL-ALPAP Retirement Plan.

Cristobal then filed another motion for reconsideration, arguing that the NLRC erred in reducing his retirement benefits. The NLRC dismissed this motion, treating it as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals agreed and dismissed Cristobal's subsequent petition for certiorari as filed out of time.

The Issue

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether Cristobal's June 24, 2011 motion for reconsideration of the NLRC's May 31, 2011 Decision constituted a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cristobal. The Court explained that the NLRC Rules of Procedure allow only one motion for reconsideration from the same party. However, this prohibition applies only when the same party assails the same judgment or resolution.

The Court distinguished the situation where a tribunal issues a decision that substantially reverses or modifies its earlier ruling. In such cases, the new decision is considered a discrete decision from the earlier one. A party may file a motion for reconsideration of this new decision without it being treated as a prohibited second motion.

The Court cited prior jurisprudence, including Solidbank Corp. v. Court of Appeals, which held that an amended decision that supersedes an original decision may be subject to a new motion for reconsideration. Similarly, in Barba v. Liceo De Cagayan University, the Court ruled that a motion for reconsideration filed after an amended decision totally reversed the previous ruling was not prohibited.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the NLRC's May 31, 2011 Decision substantially modified its September 30, 2010 Decision by deleting damages and reducing retirement benefits. Cristobal was therefore not precluded from seeking reconsideration of this new decision. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Cristobal's petition for certiorari as filed out of time.

The Court also addressed the Court of Appeals' dismissal on the ground of failure to attach pertinent documents. Citing Wack Wack Golf & Country Club v. NLRC, the Court noted that subsequent substantial compliance with procedural rules may warrant relaxation in the interest of justice. The outright dismissal was reversible error.

The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to allow the parties to fully discuss the issue of whether the PAL Pilots Retirement Benefit Plan should be considered in computing retirement benefits.

Practical Takeaways

• A motion for reconsideration is prohibited only when the same party seeks to overturn the same decision or resolution it previously challenged.
• If a tribunal issues a new decision that substantially reverses or modifies an earlier ruling, a party may file a fresh motion for reconsideration of that new decision.
• The period to appeal or file a petition for certiorari should be reckoned from the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the new decision, not the earlier one.
• Procedural rules are intended to promote substantial justice; courts may relax strict compliance when warranted by the circumstances.
• Litigants should carefully track the procedural history of their case to determine whether a motion for reconsideration is proper and timely.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.