Title
Citibank, N.A. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 159302
Decision Date
Aug 22, 2008
Citibank vs. Paragas: SC denied respondent's late-filed second motion for reconsideration, citing notice to counsel as notice to client, lack of extraordinary reasons, and insufficient substantive arguments.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 159302)

Facts:

Rosita Tan Paragás (respondent) sought relief in labor proceedings involving Citibank, N.A. (petitioner). After an earlier adverse Resolution dated April 23, 2008 denied respondent’s earlier motion for reconsideration, respondent claimed that she learned of that denial only when she inquired with the Judicial Records Section of this Court on July 9, 2008. Respondent admitted, however, that a copy of the April 23, 2008 Resolution may have been sent to the law firm of M.M. Lazaro & Associates, her counsel of record, with which she had no communication since she filed her earlier motion. Respondent explained that her counsel was handling the case on a pro bono basis and that she found it difficult to dismiss the services to avoid straining their relations. The records showed that notice of the April 23, 2008 Resolution was received by respondent’s counsel on June 5, 2008. The Court held that notice to counsel was notice to the client, there being no notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel; thus, the reglementary period started from counsel’s receipt. The Court then considered that respondent’s Motion for Leave to Admit (attached second motion for reconsideration) and her SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, both dated July 22, 2008 and filed on July 24, 2008, were filed way out of time. Nevertheless, the Court also reviewed the substance of respondent’s motions and found them unmeritorious. Respondent argued that second motions for reconsideration are not absolutely prohibited, invoking alleged procedural irregularities and substantive points, and cited that in the past the Court granted petitioner a second motion for reconsideration. Petitioner opposed, and the Court ultimately denied respondent’s motions.

Issues:

Whether respondent’s Motion for Leave to Admit (attached Second Motion for Reconsideration) and her Second Motion for Reconsideration should be admitted and granted despite the general prohibition against second motions for reconsideration and the alleged procedural defects.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.