4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Rover. The NLRC denied the motion in its resolution[10] of October 31, 2006, declaring as “superfluous and immaterial” the claimed newly-discovered evidence. It emphasized that Nazal’s subsequent voyage did not prove that he had not been sick or that his sickness had not been aggravated by his work on board the vessel M/V Rover. Thereafter, the agency elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA Decision The CA dismissed the petition outright for having been filed out of time.[11] It pointed out that the assailed NLRC resolution of October 31, 2006 – the subject of the petition – is a ruling on the agency’s urgent motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution dated November 30, 2005 which, in turn, denied the agency’s motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision of September 30, 2005. The second motion for reconsideration filed by the same party, the CA declared, is expressly prohibited by Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. The agency moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion.[12] The Petition The agency now asks the Court to set aside the CA resolutions, contending that the appellate court committed an error of law and gravely abused its discretion in holding that it filed a prohibited second motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. It argues that the two motions alluded to dealt with different subject matters; the first one (dated November 11, 2005) dealt with the merits of the case while the second one (dated March 21, 2006) was based on newly-discovered evidence. The NLRC denied the agency’s urgent motion for reconsideration in its resolution of October 31, 2006, copy of which the agency allegedly received on November 15, 2006. [13] It maintains that it had until January 10, 2007 to file the petition for certiorari which it did on time, or on December 11, 2006. The agency bewails the CA’s resort to technicalities to “thwart substantial justice,” insisting that it has proven the merits of its case. It submits that Nazal’s claim may even be fraudulent considering that he filed it after he disembarked from the vessel M/V Rover and, subsequently, obtained employment with another vessel and kept silent about it. It argues that the fact that Nazal was able to secure a subsequent posting shows that he was fit and able when he left his employment with the petitioners. In any event, it adds that Nazal is disqualified from claiming disability benefits because of his failure to comply with the mandatory post-employment medical examination under the POEA-SEC. The Case for Nazal and Related Incidents On July 4, 2007, the Court required Nazal to comment on the petition.[14] Instead of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55870 3/9