ROBERT T. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER (PCMC), RESPONDENT.

Relative to Our Decision on May 26, 2014, which was a discourse within twelve pages relative to the denial of petitioner’s recourse under Rule 43 from the Civil Service Commission’s dispositions for petitioner’s dismissal from the service due to dishonesty and falsification of documents,^[1] petitioner retorted through a 4-page Motion for Reconsideration.^[2]

When tested by parameters of Rule 37, the subject Motion for Reconsideration did not address specific observations of the Court which could have elicited a different conclusion from Us. As such, We were constrained to treat petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration as pro forma and concomitantly, it will not suspend the period to appeal.^[3]

Accordingly, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration from the impugned Decision is hereby DENIED on account of the caveat on the concept of pro forma.

SO ORDERED.

De Leon, M. M., Chairperson, and Cruz, S. C., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 210-222.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 227-232.

^[3] 1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 10^th edition, 2010, pp. 427-428, citing Section 2, Rule 37, Francisco vs. Caluag, L-15365, December 26, 1961, Villalon, et al. vs. Ysip, et al., 98 Phil. 851 and other cases;2 Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, 2013 edition, page 99 – “A motion for reconsideration must point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment demonstrating the invoked ground; or are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law. There should be an express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings and conclusions.” (citing Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Ortiz, 150 SCRA 380,391 [1987], Marikina Valley Development Corporation vs. Flojo, 251 SCRA 87,93 [1995].