In the Philippine appellate system, a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) is a vital "condition precedent" before a litigant can seek higher judicial relief. It provides the Court of Appeals (CA) an opportunity to correct its own errors without the intervention of the Supreme Court.
The process is governed primarily by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 52, and the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA).
1. The Reglementary Period
Timing is the most critical factor in filing an MR. Under Section 1, Rule 52, a party must file the motion within fifteen (15) days from the notice of the decision or final resolution.
Key Rules on the Timeline:
- The "Fresh Period" Rule: While the "Neypes Rule" (granting a fresh 15-day period to file a notice of appeal after an MR is denied) applies to trial courts, in the CA, the 15-day period to file the MR itself is non-extendible.
- Date of Receipt: The period begins the day after the party’s counsel of record receives the official copy of the decision.
- Finality: If no motion is filed within this 15-day window, the decision becomes final and executory, and an "Entry of Judgment" is typically issued.
2. Formal Requirements
A Motion for Reconsideration is not a mere formality; it must comply with strict procedural standards to avoid summary dismissal.
- Written Form: It must be in writing, specifically stating the grounds relied upon.
- Proof of Service: You must serve a copy of the motion to the adverse party before or at the time of filing. Proof of this service (e.g., registry receipts or affidavit of service) must be attached.
- The "No Pro-Forma" Rule: The motion must point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the decision which are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law. A motion that merely repeats arguments already passed upon by the court may be declared pro-forma, which does not toll the 15-day period for finality.
3. The Process and Internal Workflow
Step 1: Filing and Raffle
The MR is filed with the CA and generally referred to the same Justice who penned the original decision (the "Reporting Justice").
Step 2: Comment by Adverse Party
The Court may require the adverse party to file a Comment within ten (10) days from notice. However, the Court can also deny the motion outright if it finds it patently meritless without waiting for a comment.
Step 3: Resolution
The CA is mandated to resolve the motion within ninety (90) days from the time it is submitted for resolution.
- The Special Raffle: If the original Justice is no longer with the CA, the case is re-raffled.
- Voting: Since the CA sits in Divisions of three, a unanimous vote is required. If a member of the Division dissents, two additional Justices are raffled to form a "Special Division of Five," where a majority (three votes) is needed to resolve the motion.
4. Prohibited Motions
In the Court of Appeals, a Second Motion for Reconsideration is strictly prohibited. Section 2, Rule 52 states that "No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained."
The filing of a second MR does not stay the period for the decision to become final. The only exception to this is if the Court, in the interest of higher justice, expressly allows it—though this is exceedingly rare in the CA.
5. Effect of the Motion
Filing a timely and compliant MR stays the execution of the judgment or final resolution, unless the court directs otherwise or the law provides that the judgment is immediately executory (such as in certain injunction cases or labor cases involving reinstatement).
Outcome Scenarios:
| Outcome | Action |
|---|---|
| Granted | The Court amends its decision. The prevailing party may then file their own MR against the new amended decision. |
| Denied | The party may file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court within 15 days from notice of the denial. |
6. Judicial Philosophy
The Court of Appeals generally views MRs with a high threshold. Because the CA is a reviewer of facts and law, the motion must demonstrate a "palpable error" or "grave misapprehension of facts." Litigants are cautioned against using the MR as a tool for delay, as the Court may impose double costs or sanctions for motions that are clearly intended to stall the administration of justice.