REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH , CITY

, Civil Case No.

Petitioner, For:
Collection of Sum of
Money

-versus-

,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

For resolution is Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration dated, assailing

Department’s Decision on the above-entitled case, praying that the same be
reconsidered and that he may be given a five (5) year extension of validity for his

In the instant Motion, Appellant alleges that despite his repeated failure to
appear and failure to file a Formal Offer of Evidence, he is still entitled to the
extension of validity of his on account of public interest and public need. In
connection thereto, we shall take this time to emphasize that while in certain
instances, relaxation in the application of the rules may be allowed, it was never
intended to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with
impunity.1 Thus, Appellant cannot simply ask for liberality in the application of
the rules especially when such dismissal was due to his own actions.

After a careful re-evaluation of the facts, law and jurisprudence, this

Department finds no compelling reasons to reverse its earlier ruling. The
arguments raised herein are a mere rehash of those previously presented, all of
which have been threshed out and exhaustively passed upon in the assailed
Decision.

1
Bernice Joan Ti, V. Manuel S. Diño, G.R. No. 219260, November 06, 2017
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find no cogent reasons to disturb
the afore-mentioned Decision. Hence, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

____________________,.