DST DAESUNG TRANS AND TOURS AND JANG WON SEO, PETITIONERS, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), PRUDENCIO A. BOHOL, JR., AND ADELMO A. ABLAO, RESPONDENTS.

On July 30, 2013, this Court issued a Resolution (Rollo, pp. 84-85) directing petitioners to complete within five (5) days from notice, the particulars of the notary public in the notarial certificate of the petition’s Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping as well as in the Affidavit of Proof of Service and Explanation.

Despite being notified of the aforementioned directive, petitioners failed to comply with it and no explanation was offered to this Court for such failure (Rollo, pp. 89-90).

On December 19, 2013, this Court issued a Resolution (Rollo, pp. 92-93) dismissing, declaring petitioners’ failure to comply with this Court’s Resolution dated July 30, 2013, a blatant display of indifference to the lawful order of this Court. This Court further declared that petitioners’ failure to comply with such directive rendered the instant petition formally defective. Hence, for failure to comply with the lawful order of the Court, to comply with Section 2, Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13- SC) as well as Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant petition was dismissed.

On January 21, 2014, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Rollo, pp. 94-112). Petitioners argued that sustaining the assailed judgment/order of the respondent NLRC, would result in a miscarriage of justice against them.

Petitioners continued that the rules of procedure were but tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that their strict and rigid application would result in technicalities and would tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. They then declared that this Court has, time and again, suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interest of justice so requires.

Petitioners then proceeded to discuss the merits of the case.

Private respondents filed a Comment (On the Motion for Reconsideration Re: 19 December 2013 Resolution) (Rollo, pp. 127-131) pointing out that the subject Motion for Reconsideration failed to address the grounds cited by this Court in dismissing the petition and that the motion was merely a duplication of the dismissed petition, without any valid justification as to why the same should proceed despite their failure to comply with the Court’s directive issued on July 30, 2013.

A reading of petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration shows that no valid and compelling reason was given why this Court should reverse its Resolution dated December 19, 2013 dismissing the instant petition. Neither did petitioners make any effort to comply with this Court’s earlier Resolution dated July 30, 2013, in its motion for reconsideration.

Hence, for lack of merit, petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Lopez and Inting, JJ., concur.