PEOPLE’S SECURITY, INC., PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) AND MATT ARIEL P. CALINGACION, RESPONDENTS.

People's Security versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is People's Security versus National Labor Relations Commission, a labor case that reached the Supreme Court on a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner, People's Security, Incorporated, sought to overturn the Court's earlier decision, while the private respondent, Matt Ariel Calingacion, opposed the motion. The case matters to a bar candidate because it illustrates how the Supreme Court treats a motion for reconsideration that merely repeats arguments already passed upon and resolved.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court rendered a Decision on December 5, 2013. The petitioner, People's Security, Incorporated, then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Decision. The private respondent, Matt Ariel Calingacion, filed a Comment on the motion. The matter thus came before the Supreme Court for resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

Facts

The decision text before us is the Court's resolution of a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner, People's Security, Incorporated, filed the motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's December 5, 2013 Decision. The private respondent, Matt Ariel Calingacion, filed a Comment on that motion.

Upon examining the motion, the Court noticed that the arguments raised therein were mere rehash of those arguments already presented and which had been passed upon and resolved in the Decision sought to be reconsidered.

Issues

• Whether or not the arguments raised in the petitioner's motion for reconsideration are mere rehash of arguments already passed upon and resolved in the Decision sought to be reconsidered.
• Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be granted.

Applicable Provisions

The decision text provided does not quote or discuss any specific statutory or constitutional provision. The Court's resolution rests on its finding that the arguments in the motion were mere rehash of those already resolved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that the arguments raised in the present motion are mere rehash of those arguments already presented and which have been passed upon and resolved in the Decision sought to be reconsidered.

On the second issue, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The Court stated:

WHEREFORE, the present Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration that merely repeats arguments already presented, passed upon, and resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered is denied for lack of merit. A bar candidate should retain that the Supreme Court will not entertain a motion for reconsideration that is a mere rehash of prior arguments.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, so the private respondent, Matt Ariel Calingacion, prevailed and the December 5, 2013 Decision stood.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a motion for reconsideration raising mere rehash of arguments already passed upon and resolved is denied for lack of merit. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a candidate understands the standard for denying a motion for reconsideration that merely repeats prior arguments.