Effects of a Motion for Reconsideration Without New Evidence in Philippine Courts

A practitioner’s guide to purpose, timing, tolling, finality, and pitfalls—across trial and appellate levels, in civil and criminal cases.

1) What it is (and isn’t)

A motion for reconsideration (MR) asks the court to re-examine its judgment or order based solely on the existing record—claiming errors of law or fact, or conclusions not supported by the evidence already on file. It does not tender fresh proof. That function belongs to a motion for new trial (e.g., on newly discovered evidence or FAME—fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence).

Civil cases (trial courts): Rule 37 recognizes three post-judgment remedies: (a) new trial (FAME), (b) new trial (newly discovered evidence), and (c) reconsideration (errors in law/fact). The last is the MR “without new evidence.”
Appellate courts (CA, Sandiganbayan): Rule 52 authorizes MRs from judgments and final resolutions; the Supreme Court has its own MR practice under Rule 56/Rule 45 context.
Criminal cases: While “new trial” is codified (Rule 121), an MR is likewise allowed to challenge a criminal judgment based on errors discernible from the record, without adducing new evidence.

2) Core effects of filing an MR without new evidence

A. Tolls the period to appeal (if timely and not pro forma)

File within the reglementary 15 days from notice of judgment/final order (shorter in some special laws; watch for agency rules).
A proper MR interrupts the running of the appeal period.
Upon denial, the “fresh period rule” gives a new full appeal window (commonly 15 days) counted from receipt of the denial. This harmonizes appeal timelines across Rules 40/41/42/43/45 and has been applied both in civil and criminal appeals.

⚠️ Pro forma MR does not toll the period—e.g., one that merely repeats generic claims, fails to pinpoint specific factual or legal errors, or otherwise does not genuinely seek reconsideration. When in doubt, be specific.

B. Prevents finality; stays ordinary execution

A judgment becomes final and executory only after the appeal period lapses without a proper MR or after a denied MR and the fresh period also lapses.
Because finality is suspended, ordinary execution (Rule 39, §1) may not issue while a timely MR is pending.
Exception: Execution pending appeal (discretionary; Rule 39, §2) may still issue for compelling and superior reasons, with safeguards (e.g., bond).

C. Keeps the case within the court’s control

While a timely MR is unresolved, the court retains full authority to modify, amend, or set aside its own judgment.
Once an appeal is perfected, the trial court generally loses jurisdiction over the merits, subject to residual powers (e.g., act on motions not involving the merits, approve compromises, etc.). The better practice is for the court to resolve the MR before transmittal of the record.

D. Is often a prerequisite (or at least prudent) for extraordinary remedies

For Rule 65 certiorari from interlocutory orders, an MR (or equivalent plea for reconsideration) is typically a condition precedent, unless the case falls within recognized exceptions (e.g., issues of pure law, futility, urgent necessity, deprivation of due process).

3) Scope of review on an MR (no new evidence)

An MR invites the court to:

Correct errors of law (misapplication of statutes, jurisprudence, rules).
Reweigh evidence already of record where the court misapprehended facts or drew conclusions not supported by the evidence.
Rectify procedural missteps affecting the decision (e.g., misapplied burden of proof, disregarded admissions, overlooked material portions of the record).

It cannot:

Introduce new evidence (that’s for a motion for new trial).
Raise brand-new issues not earlier joined—save for exceptional situations (e.g., matters of public policy, jurisdictional defects, supervening events) where courts may act in the higher interest of justice.

4) Formal and procedural essentials

A. Form & content (2019 Amendments mindful)

Written motion stating clearly and specifically the findings or conclusions not supported by evidence or contrary to law; attach supporting citations to the existing record.
MRs are litigious motions: ensure proper service on the adverse party with proof of service. The court may resolve the motion without oral hearing unless it deems a hearing necessary.

B. Timing

15 days from notice of judgment/final order (civil and criminal, unless a special rule/law prescribes otherwise).
Only one MR is allowed as a rule in appellate courts (and in the Supreme Court).
- A second MR is prohibited and does not toll finality—except in the rarest cases where the Court allows it “in the higher interest of justice,” typically upon showing of extraordinary circumstances and substantial new arguments of law (still not new evidence).

C. Service and counting

Count periods from actual receipt of the decision/resolution (or from valid substituted/constructive service when applicable).
If the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, filing on the next working day is timely.

5) Effects at each judicial level

Trial courts (civil)

Effect of filing: Suspends finality; tolls appeal period; execution barred (save for discretionary execution).
Ruling on MR: Court may deny, grant partially (modify), or grant fully (set aside). Partial grants reset the appeal period from notice of the resolutory order.

Trial courts (criminal)

Effect: Similarly tolls the 15-day period to appeal from promulgation of judgment; suspends finality and ordinary execution (e.g., issuance of mittimus).
Accused’s custody: If on bail, the MR preserves the status quo unless the judgment is final; if convicted of a non-bailable offense, post-conviction bail rules apply distinct from MR practice.

Court of Appeals / Sandiganbayan

One MR rule: Generally one MR only; a second MR is a prohibited pleading.
Effect: Timely MR suspends finality; denial triggers the fresh period to elevate the case by Rule 45 (questions of law) or other proper mode.

Supreme Court

Motions for reconsideration of SC decisions are allowed once (save for extremely rare relaxations).
Denial typically results in Entry of Judgment after lapse of the period; no further MR lies.
An MR at this level does not allow adding new evidence; it is strictly on the record and law.

6) Substantive standards the court applies

When no new evidence is offered, courts ask:

Did the decision rest on a misapprehension of facts in the existing record?
Were controlling laws or jurisprudence overlooked or misapplied?
Were material issues or arguments actually raised but not resolved in the decision?
Would correction avoid a manifestly unjust result without re-opening the evidentiary phase?

The movant must pinpoint errors; sweeping statements are treated as pro forma.

7) Interplay with other remedies

MR vs. Motion for New Trial: Choose MR if relief can be granted without further evidence. Choose new trial if you must present newly discovered evidence meeting the stringent tests (e.g., discovered after trial; could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence; material and not merely cumulative; would probably change the judgment).
MR vs. Appeal: An MR is optional in many appeal paths but is often strategically advisable (it can persuade the same court to fix errors quickly and preserves/tolls periods).
MR and Rule 65: If assailing an interlocutory order, first seek reconsideration unless an exception applies (to avoid dismissal for prematurity).
MR and Settlement: Pending MR does not bar amicable settlement; courts retain authority to approve compromises.

8) Practical drafting checklist (no new evidence)

Deadline: Calendar the 15th day from notice; file earlier.
Specificity:
- Identify each impugned finding/conclusion.
- Cite record pages/exhibits/TSN already on file.
- Cite controlling law/jurisprudence and show misapplication.
Structure:
- Introduction (relief sought; timeliness).
- Statement of errors (numbered).
- Argument (per error, precise record citations).
- Prayer (set aside/modify; ancillary relief).
Compliance: Proper service, proof of service, and required MCLE/IBP/O.R. details where applicable.
Tone: Respectful but pointed; avoid re-trying the case by narrative—focus on decisional errors.

9) Common pitfalls (and their consequences)

Pro forma MR → No tolling of appeal period; judgment may become final.
Out-of-time filing → MR is a mere scrap of paper; no effect on finality or execution.
Smuggling new evidence → Court disregards the annexes; if truly essential, correct remedy is new trial, not MR.
Raising new issues → Usually waived; may be entertained only for compelling reasons (e.g., jurisdiction).
Second MR (CA/SC) → Prohibited; does not stop finality unless the court exceptionally allows it.
Skipping MR for Rule 65 (from an interlocutory order) → Petition may be dismissed for prematurity absent an exception.
Assuming automatic hearing → Courts may resolve MRs without oral argument; write for the page.

10) Timelines at a glance (typical)

Judgment received (Day 0).
File MR (by Day 15). → Tolls appeal period; bars finality.
MR Denied (receive denial = Day 0).
Fresh appeal period runs anew (commonly 15 days) from receipt of denial.
No appeal filed within fresh period → Final & executory; entry of judgment; execution may issue.

11) Bottom line

An MR without new evidence is a surgical tool: it stops the clock, keeps the judgment non-final, and gives the court a chance to self-correct based on the existing record. Used correctly—timely, specific, and focused on decisional errors—it protects the right to appeal, can avert unnecessary elevation, and occasionally secures complete relief at the same level. Used carelessly—late, vague, or as a vehicle for new proof—it’s worse than useless: it won’t toll periods and may usher in finality.