Sample motion for reconsideration in massachusetts

Records show that on March 20, 1980, private respondent PLDT filed an application with the NTC for the approval of a revised schedule for its Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP), docketed as Case No.

DECISION RELOVA, J.: Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside and annul the decision, dated November 22, 1982, of public respondent National Telecommunications Commission (NTC, for short), approving the application of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT, for short) of its revised schedule for its Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP) for the entire service area, including the ex-RETELCO area as well as the order of Januwhich denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioner Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS. Wherefore: Accordingly, the decions of the public respondent NTC, dated November 22, 1982, and teh ORDER dated Januare hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.Д®N BANC PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS.

The approved rate defeats the purpose of the decree which is to spread ownership among the wide base of investors. It is untimely, considering the present economic condition obtaining in the country. There is no justification for the rate increase of the revised schedule of PLDTвЂ™s SIP. In the case at bar, compelling reasons dictate that the provision of the decree should be construed as mandatory rather than merely directory. The literal interpretation of the words of an act should not prevail if it creates a result contrary to the apparent intention of the legislature and if the words are sufficiently flexible to admit of a construction which will effectuate (put into force or operation) the legislative intention. It is an elementary rule in statutory construction that the word вЂњmayвЂќ in a statute is permissive while the word вЂњshallвЂќ is mandatory. Thus with the canons above mentioned we have the following opposite: verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservire (words ought to be more subservient to the intent and not the intent to the words). Any lawyer of modest sophistication knows that canons of statutory construction march in paris of opposite. The non-unanimous resolutions thus relies on the canons index animi sermos est (speech is the indication of intent) and a verba legis non est recendum (from the words of the statute there should be no departure). The resolution, which is not unanimous, does not subscribe to the view that the NTC should or must promulgate rules and reegulations because, it is said, the decree must be given its ordinary meaning the words used is the permissive вЂњmayвЂќ and not the mandatory вЂњshallвЂќ. Held: YES The decision, without any dissenting opinion, sustained the petitionerвЂ™s contention that it is the duty of NTC to first Promulgate rules and regulations. Issue: WON the NTC must first promulgate the rules and regulations mentioned in the decree before it can approve the SIP of privated respondent PLDT. It is the submission of petitioner that the SIP schedule presented by the PLDT is pre-mature and, therefore, illegal and baseless, because the NTC has not yet promulgated the required rules and regulations implementing Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. On November 22, 1982, the NTC rendered the questioned decision permanently approving PLDT's new and increased SIP rates.

The Court therein ruled that 'there was necessity of a hearing by the Commission before it should have acted on the application of the PLDT so that the public could air its opposition, particularly the herein petitioner and the Solicitor General, representing the government. On April 14, 1982, the NTC issued an ex-parte order provisionally approving the revised schedule which, however, was set aside by this Court on August 31, 1982. Topic: Nature of the Rules of Statutory Construction PCFI v NTC GR No L-63318, Novemand AugBy Niel Victor RabayaДЇacts: Records show that on March 20, 1980, private respondent PLDT filed an application with NTC for the approval of a вЂњrevised scheduleвЂќ for its Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP), docketed as Case No.

Sample motion for reconsideration in massachusetts