Scribd
Upload
48 views2 pages

Uploads PDF 196 SP 161137 01292021

The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners Don Teodoro V. Santos Institute and Mark Funk. In its decision, the Court affirmed the dismissal of petitioners' appeal of the Labor Arbiter's Decision, finding that the appeal was not filed on time. The Court found that the arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration were merely a rehash of issues already argued and resolved, and thus provided no compelling reason to grant the motion.

Uploaded by

Brian del Mundo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views2 pages

Uploads PDF 196 SP 161137 01292021

The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners Don Teodoro V. Santos Institute and Mark Funk. In its decision, the Court affirmed the dismissal of petitioners' appeal of the Labor Arbiter's Decision, finding that the appeal was not filed on time. The Court found that the arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration were merely a rehash of issues already argued and resolved, and thus provided no compelling reason to grant the motion.

Uploaded by

Brian del Mundo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

FORMER FIFTH DIVISION

DON TEODORO V. SANTOS CA-G.R. SP No. 161137


INSTITUTE / MARK FUNK, Vice
President,
Petitioners, Members:

CASTILLO, M.P., Chairperson


PAREDES, and
ONG, JJ.
- versus -

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Promulgated:


COMMISSION and ROSSANA L. 01/29/21
DULAY,
Respondents.
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION
CASTILLO, M., J.:
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed by
petitioners assailing Our Decision 2 promulgated on June 5, 2020, in
which We affirmed the dismissal of their appeal. No Comment was
filed thereon by the private respondent.

In their motion, petitioners maintain that their appeal was filed


on time on February 7, 2019, considering that their counsel only saw
the Labor Arbiter's Decision on January 29, 2019 (despite the return
receipt indicating that the Decision was delivered to their building on
January 24, 2019). Furthermore, greater injustice may incur if their
appeal is not given due course.

1 Rollo, pp. 291-298.


2 Rollo, pp. 278-285.
CA-G.R. SP No. 161137 2
R e s o l u t i o n
=====================================

The aforesaid are matters that were already argued and


pleaded by petitioners in their petition. As such, these arguments
have already been addressed by this Court. As these arguments are
a mere rehash of the issues already raised and resolved, We find no
compelling reason to grant the motion.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners' Motion for


Reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIFLOR P. PUNZALAN CASTILLO


Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES


Associate Justice

WALTER S. ONG
Associate Justice

You might also like