Practice question
In a matter properly appealable under Rule 43, a party timely files the permitted first reconsideration motion and receives its denial. Instead of appealing in the governing period, it files an unauthorized second reconsideration motion and claims that motion automatically restarts Rule 43 indefinitely. Which is correct?
- Every successive motion automatically creates another appeal period
- The party can prevent finality forever by repeating the motion
- The rule allows only one reconsideration motion, so the asserted automatic restart from the unauthorized second motion is incorrect
- A second motion automatically grants the requested appeal
- The CA must disregard every material date
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html — Rule 43 sections 1–5, 10 and 12, quasi-judicial functions, scope, period, one reconsideration motion, substantial evidence and nonautomatic stay; read with later special statutes.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9282_2004.html — amended CTA charter section 7(a)(5), CBAA appellate decisions, and section 19, Supreme Court Rule 45 review of CTA en banc.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2008/ra_9503_2008.html — CTA’s current collegiate-court rank and structure.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/sep1998/gr_130866_1998.html — St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, main decision on CA Rule 65 review of NLRC action.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.