ROGER VARGAS, EDUARDSON P. CARIEL, RUMAR BRIONES, ANTONIO C. ORIEL, REMY C. ORIEL, MICHAEL TOLEDO, DANILO C. GARINGALAO, JOEANN V. DIAMANTE, ORLANDO LLANERA, PHILIP GALONO, ERWI…
REYES, JR., J.C., J.:
In its Comment to the motion for reconsideration, the petitioners through counsel did not tackle the issues and arguments raised by the respondents claiming that Our Decision already passed upon and correctly resolved the issues raised in the Motion. What the petitioners opposed was the effective date of receipt of Our Decision by the respondents’ counsel. In Our Resolution[1] of March 5, 2014, We stated that petitioners’ Ex-Parte Motion for Entry of Judgment is noted because it was rendered moot by the timely filing of respondents’ motion for reconsideration.
Respecting the issues raised by the respondents in their motion, these have been extensively discussed in Our Decision and no new matters of substance were raised that would warrant reconsideration of Our Decision.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Lopez, and Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 234.