Aynbuy (WL AU EAA A AIBUEY py pr ppag rmimr Hsoer BIg) ansoseres 02. - ae — uo persog REPUBLIC OF TH PREC TES os cdrwwanees COURT OF "eo wou Mar ssi8034 AuLsiOms é Fourteenth Division ANTOINETTE ESCARIO, Petitioner, - versus - CA G.R. SP No. 146863 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. XK MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Petitioner Antoinette Escario, through counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states: That — TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION 1. On July 3, 2017, petitioner Escario received a copy of the Honorable Court's Decision dated June 21, 2017 denying her Petition. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED for being a wrong or improper remedy. Accordingly, the assailed 23 October 2014 Decision and the 26 May 2016 Resolution of the Civil Service Commission are hereby AFFIRMED.” 2. Under the rules, petitioner Escario has fifteen (15) days or until July 18, 2017 within which to file her motion for reconsideration. Thus, this motion is being filed within the period prescribed by the rules.Motion for Reconsideration ANTOINETTE ESCARIO VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION _CA-G.R. SP NO. 146863 GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION The Honorable Court is conferred with the power and discretion 3. 1.388 Phil 587 (2000) to review the petition on its merits to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on a technicality DISCUSSION In its Decision, dismissing the Petition, the Honorable Court stated: “At the outset, this Court dismisses the instant petitioner for certiorari for being the wrong mode of appeal. Section 70, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service plainly states that a party may elevate a decision of the Commission before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.” The Honorable Court went on to state that the petition for certiorari cannot be treated as a petition for review since it was not filed within the 15-day reglementary period Petitioner respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Honorable Court's Decision. Petitioner understands that procedural rules are not to be belittled and are required to be followed. However, it is equally true that procedural rules are intended to facilitate the attainment of justice. The case of Agham vs. Court of Appeals: serves as an important reminder on the power and discretion of the courts in dispensing justice.Motion for Reconsideration ANTOINETTE ESCARIO VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION _CA-G.R. SP NO. 146863 “The court has the discretion to dismiss or not to. dismiss an appellant's appeal. Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "A litigation is not a game of technicalities." "Lawsuits unlike duels are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial Justice. It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.” 8. The same reminder was given in the case of PAGCOR vs. Angaraz which provides: 2.G.R. No. 142937, November 15, 2005