GR 177103; (June, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177103; June 3, 2013
ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO., INC., ROSENDO C. HERRERA, and BENNET SHIPPING SA LIBERIA, Petitioners, vs. RAINERIO N. NAZAL, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rainerio Nazal, a cook, finished his employment contract with petitioners on November 24, 2001. He claimed he reported health issues to the agency upon arrival and was later diagnosed with hypertension and diabetes. He filed a complaint for permanent total disability benefits in 2004. Petitioners argued his claim was barred for failure to comply with the mandatory three-day post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician as required by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC).
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint due to Nazal’s non-compliance with the reporting requirement. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, awarding partial disability benefits. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed an “urgent motion for reconsideration” on grounds of newly-discovered evidence, which the NLRC also denied. Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that a prohibited second motion for reconsideration was filed with the NLRC.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic hinges on procedural rules governing motions for reconsideration before the NLRC. The NLRC Rules explicitly state that “only one such motion from the same party shall be entertained.” Petitioners’ first motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s September 2005 decision was denied in November 2005. Their subsequent “urgent motion for reconsideration” filed in 2006, albeit based on a different ground (newly-discovered evidence), was still a second motion for reconsideration filed by the same party. The prohibition is absolute and admits no exception based on the motion’s subject matter. Allowing a second motion would violate the rule on finality of judgments and undermine the orderly administration of justice. Since the NLRC resolution denying the second motion was a nullity, the petition for certiorari before the CA, which assailed that void resolution, was correctly dismissed for having been filed out of time. The reglementary period to file certiorari should have been counted from the first denial in November 2005.