1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. They argued that the transmittal of the copies of the records of the case to the ICAB was in the nature of an interlocutory order, and not a final decision; and as such, a second Motion for Reconsideration was permissible.[24] However, in the CA Resolution dated June 19, 2019, it petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. denied Aggrieved, petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on the following grounds: (i) the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time; it should have resolved the Petition on the merits; (ii) the 60-day period should be counted from the receipt of the Order denying their Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration, which they received on July 19, 2018. Hence, when they filed their Petition for Certiorari with the CA on September 12, 2018, it was well within the 60-day period, which ended on September 17, 2018; (iii) respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in referring the Petition for Adoption to the ICAB since the Petition was appropriately filed under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998; (iv) substantial compliance with the Home Study and certification requirements is sufficient because such requirements are not jurisdictional; and (v) adoption laws must be construed liberally to promote the best interest of the child.[25] The Court's Ruling We resolve to GRANT the instant petition. Thus, the instant case should be remanded to the RTC for continuation of the adoption proceedings. First, the nature of the trial court's case disposal is being raised as an issue. Was the "case disposal" equivalent to a final order such that a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited in accordance with Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court? Petitioners assert that the trial court's Order referring the case to the ICAB was an interlocutory order, which was a temporary disposal of the case subject to determination by the ICAB, after it has gone through the records, on whether inter-country adoption is appropriate and feasible under the circumstances. Petitioners deny that the Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration was filed with undue disregard of the orderly presentation and just resolution of the issues. Petitioners further point out that said Second Motion for Reconsideration was not a rehash of the arguments in the First Motion for Reconsideration since it was filed on the ground of supervening event that was newly discovered by the petitioners.[26] Consequently, petitioners claim that the 60-day period of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should be counted from the receipt of the Order denying their Manifestation and Second Motion for Reconsideration, or on July 19, 2018. Hence, when they filed their Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on September 12, 2018, it was well within the 60-day period. This Court finds that a relaxation of the rules of procedure is necessary in the instant case in order to promote the best interest of the adoptee child, Innah. In Heirs of Deleste v. Land Bank of the Phils.,[27] the Supreme Court pronounced : Time and again, this Court has held that a strict and rigid application of technicalities https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65992 4/13