Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

First Division

TEODORICO S. MIRANDA JR.,

Petitioner,

-versus - G.R. NO. 174316

COURT OF APPEALS and ASIAN

TERMINALS INC., (ATI) et. al.,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO ADMIT

ATTACHED SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PETITIONER-MOVANT TEODORICO MIRANDA JR. for and on his

own behalf respectfully states:

1. On September 29, 2009, Petitioner’s counsel received a

copy of the Minute Resolution dated August 19, 2009 of this Honorable

Court, denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this

Honorable Court’s Decision date June 23, 2009 with FINALITY.

2. Admittedly, Section of Rule 52 of the Revised Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that a second motion for reconsideration of a

judgment or final resolution by the same party shall not be

entertained. However, this Honorable Court has, in several cases it

previously heard and decided, given due course to a second motion for

reconsideration even though the second motion for reconsideration

was subsequently denied as shown below:

(a) In Republic of the Philippines v. Desiert, (G.R. NO.

131966, August 31, 2005), this Honorable Court gave due course a

second motion for reconsideration and eventually denied it.

(b) In Republic of the Philippines v. Lim (G.R. NO. 161656,

June 29, 2005), this Honorable Court gave due course to a second

motion for reconsideration in interest of justice but eventually denied

the second motion for reconsideration

3. There have also been not a few cases where this

Honorable Court gave due course to a second motion for

reconsideration and granted it wholly or partially.

(a) In Galman v. Sandiganbayan, (G.R. NO. 72670,

September 12, 1986) this Honorable Court gave due course to and

granted a second motion for reconsideration on the ground of the

availability of the evidence, which was previously not disclosed to this

Honorable Court.

(b) In Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Romillo (G.R. NO. L-

64276, August 12, 1986), this Honorable Court gave due course and
partially granted a second motion for reconsideration on the ground of

humanitarian considerations.

(c) In Allied Banking Corporation c. Sposes Eserjose (G.R. NO.

161776, March 10, 2005), this Honorable Court gave due course and

partially granted a second motion for reconsideration in order to

correct a grave patent injustice.

(d) In Soria v. Villegas (A.M. NO. RTJ-03-1812, November 18,

2004), this Honorable Court gave due course and partially granted a

second motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was justified

under the circumstances of the case.

(e) In Astorga v. People of the Philippines (G.R. NO. 154130,

August 20, 2004), this Honorable Court gave due course and granted

a second motion for reconsideration on the ground that it will better

serve the ends of substantial injustice.

(f) In Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of

Appeals (G.R. NO. 112526, March 16, 2005), this Honorable Court

gave due course and granted a second motion for reconsideration on

the grounds of compelling reasons, which are finely interwined with

the merits of the case.

(g) Also, there has been an instance where this Honorable

Court had to recall an entry of judgment that it issued after it acted

favorably on a second motion for reconsideration. In Manila Electric

Company v. Barlis, this Honorable Court gave due course to second

motion for reconsideration in light of supervening findings, which are

inconsistent with its earlier ruling.

4. The above-mentioned jurisprudence were all present in this

case as stated in the compelling reasons below which were discussed

in the attached second motion for reconsideration. Thus, this

Honorable Court is urged to take a hard second look at this case.

5. With all due respect, this Honorable Court Resolutions

dated August 19, 2009, denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

despite the clear allegations thereof were supported by evidentiary

documents on records which would warrant the reversal of the decision

of this Honorable Court, more particularly in dismissing the instant

case on its entire merits despite that the petition before them was only

for the enforcement and the collection of his accrued salaries regarding

the reinstatement aspect pending appeal of the case for five (5) years

already, notwithstanding that the main case that deals with the merits

of the case was already pending before the Honorable Court of Appeals

(CA G.R. SP No. 91714), thereby resulted to rendering moot and

academic the resolution of the same, which left nothing to petitioner to

his great prejudice and damage. Moreover, such resolution violated

prior labor rulings on reinstatement aspect decided by this Honorable

Supreme Court and/or steris decisi.

 6. From that basis alone there was already a clear

miscarriage of justice and the constitutional provision regarding social

justice. Thus, in the interest of substantial justice and fair play this

Honorable Court is respectfully urged to admit the attached second

motion for reconsideration.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays for leave to admit the

attached second motion for reconsideration; and after giving due

course, grant the second motion for reconsideration.

All other reliefs, just and equitable, under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

Manila, October 12, 2009.

TEODORICO MIRANDA JR.

Petitioner-Movant