Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

HELENA MAYUMI T. _________

Petitioner CA- G.R. SP No. __________

-versus-

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Respondent
x--------------------------------------x

VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

WITH COMPLIANCE

PETITIONER, through counsel, to the Honorable Court respectfully states

THAT:

TIMELINESS OF FILING THE

VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 02, 2020, Petitioner, through counsel, received a copy of the

Resolution of the Honorable Court dated February 17, 2020. She has grace
period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof or until March 17, 2020 within
which to file the instant Motion for Reconsideration; however, our country was
placed under Enhance Community Quarantine due to the corona virus
pandemic. With the advent of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 40-
2020 in relation to SC Admin. Circular No. 31-2020, the present motion is
seasonably submitted.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

In its Resolution dated February 17, 2020, the Honorable Court dismissed
the Petition for Review filed by herein petitioner on the ground that the said
petition failed to comply with the foregoing requirements as stated under Rule

1
43 of the Rules of Court; hence, this Motion for Reconsideration being timely
submitted.

GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Honorable Court should take a second look on its Resolution

dismissing the petition for failure to comply with the rules of procedure and
technicality rather than on the substance and merit of the case.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The Honorable Court dismissed the Petition for Review of herein

petitioner for failure to comply with the rules of procedure as stated under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Honorable Court stated among others that,
the petition failed to attach the necessary documents which are pertinent and
material to the petition and the petition also failed to indicate the date of the
receipts of the notice of Judgment or Decision subject of the present petition.
Petitioner humbly maintained that the date of receipts of the Judgment or
Decision subject of the petition was stated in the petition. The date of the
receipts of the Notice of Resolution was on January 30, 2020 found on page 1
of the petition under the second paragraph of the said petition. What
petitioner failed to indicate was the date when it filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Decision of the Civil Service Commission. The Motion
for Reconsideration of the decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
promulgated on July 29, 2019 was filed on August 20, 2019. The decision of the
CSC promulgated on July 29, 2019 was received by the petitioner through her
counsel on August 07, 2019. Petitioner has fifteen (15) day period or until
August 22 to file the said motion for reconsideration.

The Honorable Court in its Resolution also stated that the Petition failed
to specify concise statements of facts and issues and the particular ground
relied for the petition. The Petition for Review submitted to the Honorable
Court contains a concise statement of facts and issues of the case. It is
apparent on the face of the petition that it contained a statement of facts and
issues of the case. The grounds relied upon for the Petition for Review was
incorporated in the Issues of the petition. It is the humble opinion of herein

2
petitioner the petition submitted contained a concise statement of facts and
issues as well as the ground relied upon for the petition.

It is a well-settled rule that "the right to appeal is not a natural right or a

part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who
seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the
rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost.” Verily, compliance
with procedural rules is a must, "since they are designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the
resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice.1

The Supreme Court have stressed that procedural rules do not exist for
the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to
provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system.2

Nevertheless, if a rigid application of the rules of procedure will tend to

obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice in light of the
prevailing circumstances of the case, such as where strong considerations of
substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the Court may relax the strict
application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction. The Court's pronouncement in Heirs of Zaulda  v. Zaulda is
instructive on this matter, to wit:3

The reduction in the number of pending cases is laudable, but if it would

be attained by precipitate, if not preposterous, application of technicalities,
justice would not be served. The law abhors technicalities that impede the
cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "It is
a more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and
afford the parties a review of the case on appeal rather than dispose of the
case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay,
if not miscarriage of justice."4

What should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant

should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his

1
Marlon P. Curammeng vs. People, G.R. No. 219510, November 14, 2016

2
 Le Soleil Int'l. Logistics Co., Inc,. et al. v. Sanchez, et al., 769 Phil. 466  
3
Marlon P. Curammeng vs.People, G.R. No. 219510, November 14, 2016
4
supra

3
complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor, or
property on technicalities. The rules of procedure should be viewed as mere
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. 5

The Supreme Court also held that rules must not be applied rigidly so as
not to override substantial justice6.

In the case at bar, Petitioner’s failure to comply with the procedural rules
is a plain oversight by counsel as the latter is a novice (in the field of appeals in
the Appellate Court). Undersigned counsel lacks the necessary experience in
the preparation of his Pleadings in the Appellate Court particularly the Court of
Appeals and Supreme Court. Even though it’s disgraceful to admit, it is for this
experience that undersigned counsel will learn. For such reason, the
undersigned counsel is humbly asking the Honorable Court for wide latitude of
understanding of the plain oversight of herein counsel. It was the humble
opinion of the undersigned counsel that the documents attached to the
petition would suffice. Undersigned counsel has no intention to ignore the
procedural rules; it was due to his lack of knowledge and experience.
Undersigned counsel undertakes to be more circumspect in dealing with his
pleadings in order to avoid similar circumstances. The plain oversight by the
undersigned counsel should not be taken against the petitioner as to deprive
the latter the opportunity to establish the merit of her case. In the interest of
substantial justice, fair play and equity, the undersigned counsel is zealously
pleading the Honorable Court for a compassionate heart to relax the
application of procedural rules and to adhere to the administration of justice
base on the merits of the case.

Petitioner has meritorious arguments in her Petition for Review before

the Honorable Court. If only the Appellate Court has considered the arguments
embodied in the petition, the Resolution would have been different. The
Resolution of the Honorable Court based on mere technicality would not serve
the demand for substantial justice. It will run counter to the objective of the
Court as the arbiter of justice, which is to dispense justice base on the merits of
the case and not mere technicality. Petitioner should be given the opportunity
to establish the merits of her case. Petitioner’s employment is at stake, she
would suffer grave irreparable injury as she will lose her employment
5
supra
6
Trans International vs. CA, NAPOCOR, G.R. No. 128421, January 26, 1998

4
perpetually without a proper determination of the merit of her case.
Petitioner was a government employee for more than two (2) decades. She
served the Government with honesty and did not commit any infraction of the
Civil Service law; her service to the government was punctuated by the
complaint which is not attributable to her. The decision of the Civil Service
Commission Regional Office which was affirmed with modification by the Civil
Service National Office is too harsh a penalty considering her length of service
and her dedication to the service of the people.

COMPLIANCE

Petitioner, through counsel, to the Honorable Court most respectfully

submits the following documents in compliance with the procedural rules
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and in consonance of the enumeration
stated by the Honorable Court in its Resolution dated February 17, 2020:

A. Order dated February 27, 2014;

B. Petitioner’s Counter-Affidavit;

C. Petitioner’s Position Paper;

D. Answer

E. Resolution No. 1500062 dated June 1, 2015;

F. Prosecutor’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence;

G. Prosecutor’s Motion to Admit Supplemental Formal Offer of Evidence

H. Decision No. 160032 dated March 23, 2016 of CSC Regional Office;

I. Motion for Reconsideration before the CSC Regional Office;

J. Resolution No.00058 dated May 31, 2016 by the CSC Regional Office.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of

the Honorable Court to DULY RECONSIDER and SET ASIDE its Resolution dated
5
February 17, 2020 and for the relaxation of procedural rules so that her
petition will be reinstated and given due course. It is likewise prayed for that
the documents attached in compliance with the rules of procedure be duly
notice and admitted.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.

________, Isabela for Manila, Philippines. May __, 2020.

________ LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Petitioner
______ Bldg., _______,
_______, Isabela /

By:

ATTY. F_________ M. G__________

Roll No. 71____/Isabela Chapter
PTR No. 12381723/ 01- 08-20/________, Isabela
IBP Receipt No. 081164/07-17-2019
MCLE Comp. No. VI-0013824 /10-01-2018
MCLE is valid until April 14, 2022
gm_james0031@yahoo.com/ 090_-86_-909_

The Division Clerk of Court

Court of Appeals, Manila

Please submit the foregoing Motion immediately upon receipt hereof for
the favorable consideration of the Honorable Court. Thank you.

6
 F_______ M. G__________
Copy furnished: (via registered mail)

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GEN. MANAGER _____________

National Capital Region Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
CSC Bldg., IBP Road Batasan Hills Sun Plaza Bldg., 1507 Princeton St.,
Quezon City 1100 corner Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City

THE COA RESIDENT AUDITOR OIC R________ M____________

Old RHU Bldg., Africano St., Office of the President and General Manager
_________ City, Isabela Government Service Insurance System
GSIS Financial Center, 2302 Roxas Blvd.,
1300 Pasay City

OIC-BRANCH MANGER ___________

PSCO-Isabela Office
Old RHU Bldg., Africano St.,
___________, Isabela

EXPLANATION:

A copy of the foregoing Motion was duly furnished the above-mentioned

Office/Persons in their given addresses via registered mail pursuant to Section
7 and 11, Rule 13 of the Rule of Court due to distance, time and expense to
effect personal delivery.

F_______ M.
G________

Note: Motion Fee through postal money oral to follow