that although the petitioner had asked for an extension of
thirty days, which would have ended on January 28, 1979, the recorded fact was that the extension granted was up to January 29, 1979. The motion was filed on this date and so it could not be faulted for tardiness. 14 On the last ground, however, the respondent court sustained the private respondent. It held that the second motion for reconsideration should have been denied for being pro forma as it was a mere reiteration of the issues previously raised and already decided by the trial court. Accordingly, it annulled the amended decision based on the second motion for reconsideration and reinstated the original decision of Judge Puno. The Court has carefully gone over the first and the second motions for reconsideration and cannot agree with the respondent court that the latter simply reproduces the issues already raised and resolved in the first motion. We find that the second motion not only restates and reargues the first motion but also amplifies the same; and more than that, it also invokes and supports other substantial grounds not earlier raised 15 in the first motion. In the first motion, the petitioner argued that there was probable cause to justify his filing of the complaint for estafa and that he had not been motivated by malice; that the filing of the complaint for malicious prosecution in Bulacan was intended to harass him because the plaintiff was a resident of Caloocan City; and that there was 16 no basis for the award of damages. In the second motion, the petitioner augmented his claim that he had not filed the estafa charge with malice; that he had probable cause because the defendant had not gone beyond his own self- serving statements to prove that he had stopped payment of the checks because the goods delivered to him were
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fe7708fe37a10fb32003600fb002c009e/p/APQ346/?username=Guest Page 9 of 19
William Van Poyck, 034071 v. Harry K. Singletary, JR., T.L. Barton, Simeon N. Cerdan, Gale P. Christy, Paul Decker, Roger Guthrie, 11 F.3d 146, 11th Cir. (1994)