Nature and Office of Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 is a post-judgment remedy addressed to the same court that rendered the judgment or final order. It asks the court to correct its own disposition before finality because the result is unsupported by the evidence, contrary to law, or affected by an excessive award of damages.
Reconsideration is not an appeal, a new action, or a retrial. It proceeds on the premise that the case has already been submitted and decided, and that the error can be corrected from the record without reopening the trial for the reception of evidence.
The remedy reflects two procedural policies. First, the trial court should have a fair opportunity to correct substantial error before the case is elevated. Second, litigation must still end, so the motion must be timely, specific, and limited to grounds permitted by the Rules.
Judgment or Final Order Covered
Rule 37 reconsideration is directed against a judgment or final order in a civil action. A judgment adjudicates the rights and obligations of the parties, while a final order disposes of the action or of a matter in such a way that nothing more remains for the court to do on that matter except execution or implementation.
The remedy is available only while the judgment or final order remains within the court's control. Once the judgment becomes final and executory, the court generally loses authority to alter it, except for recognized residual matters such as clerical corrections, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, or other exceptional remedies governed by separate rules.
A motion asking the court to reconsider an interlocutory order may exist under general motion practice, but it is not the Rule 37 post-judgment remedy. Interlocutory errors are ordinarily reviewed in the appeal from the final judgment, unless a special remedy is independently available.
Grounds for Reconsideration
Rule 37 recognizes reconsideration when the judgment or final order is defective because of the award, the factual basis, or the legal conclusion. The motion does not exist to repeat every argument previously made; it must identify a substantial error that affects the disposition.
| Ground | Meaning | Usual Corrective Action |
|---|---|---|
| Excessive damages | The amount awarded is unsupported by the evidence, exceeds what the law permits, duplicates another recovery, or is disproportionate to the proven injury. | The court may reduce, delete, or restructure the award without disturbing unaffected portions of the judgment. |
| Insufficient evidence | The factual findings do not rest on the required quantum of proof, disregard material evidence, or draw conclusions not reasonably supported by the record. | The court may revise factual findings, change the dispositive result, or adjust relief according to the evidence already presented. |
| Contrary to law | The court applied the wrong rule, misconstrued the governing law, ignored a legal consequence established by the facts, or rendered relief not authorized by law. | The court may correct the legal ruling and conform the dispositive portion to the proper legal consequence. |
The ground based on excessive damages is narrower than a general complaint that the judgment is unfavorable. The movant must show why the award has no adequate evidentiary or legal basis, such as lack of proof of actual loss, improper duplication of damages, or an amount that the facts and law cannot sustain.
The ground based on insufficiency of evidence is directed at the record as made. It allows the court to re-evaluate whether the evidence meets the applicable burden, but it does not ordinarily permit the losing party to supply evidence that should have been offered at trial.
The ground that the judgment is contrary to law covers errors in legal reasoning, legal characterization, jurisdictional consequence, remedy, or application of rules to established facts. It is especially important where the facts are largely undisputed but the legal effect given to them is wrong.
Distinction from New Trial
Rule 37 also governs motions for new trial, but reconsideration and new trial have different functions. Reconsideration corrects the judgment on the existing record; new trial reopens the case because specified circumstances justify further proceedings.
| Point of Comparison | Reconsideration | New Trial |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | To correct errors in the judgment or final order. | To vacate the judgment and receive further proceedings because trial fairness or newly discovered evidence requires it. |
| Basis | Excessive damages, insufficiency of evidence, or judgment contrary to law. | Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or newly discovered evidence meeting the rule's requisites. |
| Record | Generally confined to the evidence and matters already before the court. | May involve additional evidence or renewed proceedings after the judgment is set aside. |
| Effect if granted | The court amends or corrects the judgment or final order. | The original judgment is vacated and the case stands for further trial or proceedings as ordered. |
A motion mislabeled as reconsideration may be treated according to its substance. If the party seeks reception of evidence based on grounds proper for new trial, the court will examine whether the requisites for new trial have been met, not merely the caption chosen by the movant.
Period and Filing
The motion must be filed within the period for taking an appeal from the judgment or final order. In the ordinary case, that period is fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order; where a different mode or period applies, the governing appeal rule controls.
The period is strict because the judgment becomes final by operation of law upon the lapse of the appeal period without a timely and proper post-judgment remedy. A motion filed after finality cannot suspend, interrupt, or revive the period to appeal.
A timely motion for reconsideration interrupts the running of the appeal period only if it is a real Rule 37 motion. A late, prohibited, or pro forma motion does not prevent the judgment from becoming final.
The motion must comply with the rules on litigious motions and with Rule 37's specificity requirement. It must be in writing, served on the adverse party, and must state the factual or legal grounds relied upon with enough particularity to allow the court and the opposing party to understand the alleged error.
A proper motion for reconsideration should point out the findings or conclusions claimed to be unsupported by the evidence or contrary to law, with reference to the relevant portions of the record or the governing legal rule. General assertions that the court erred, that justice requires reconsideration, or that the decision is contrary to law are inadequate if they do not identify the actual error.
Pro Forma Motions
A pro forma motion for reconsideration is one that merely gives the appearance of seeking reconsideration but does not perform the procedural function of the remedy. It is commonly defective because it fails to specify errors, merely states broad conclusions, repeats matters without engaging the ruling, or is plainly interposed for delay.
The consequence is severe: a pro forma motion does not toll the period to appeal. If the appeal period lapses while such a motion is pending, the judgment may become final even before the court formally denies the motion.
A motion is not pro forma merely because it reiterates arguments previously made. Repetition may be proper when the motion specifically explains how the court misunderstood evidence, misapplied law, or failed to address a material matter that affects the judgment.
Effect on Finality and Appeal
A timely and non-pro forma motion for reconsideration prevents immediate finality of the judgment or final order. While the motion is unresolved, the judgment is not yet final for purposes of ordinary appeal and execution as a matter of right.
Upon denial of a timely and proper motion, the movant receives a fresh period to take the appropriate appeal, counted from notice of the denial. The party must still use the correct appellate mode, comply with the required contents, and file in the proper court.
The fresh period does not cure an untimely motion, validate a pro forma motion, or create a new period from the denial of a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. It operates only after a valid first motion has interrupted the original appeal period.
When the court grants reconsideration and substantially amends the judgment, the appeal period is reckoned from notice of the amended judgment or the order that effectively changes the original disposition. If the amendment is merely clerical or does not affect the adjudicated rights, the effect on appellate periods depends on the substance of the change.
Action by the Court
The court may deny the motion, grant it in whole, grant it in part, or amend the judgment in the manner justified by the record and the law. The court is not limited to the exact wording proposed by the movant if the correction necessarily follows from the error established.
If reconsideration is granted, the court may modify the dispositive portion, correct findings, alter the relief, delete unsupported awards, or enter a new judgment consistent with its corrected conclusions. The original judgment remains controlling only to the extent not changed by the amended disposition.
The court should resolve only matters properly raised and necessary to the correction of the judgment. Reconsideration is not a license to reopen issues already waived, to introduce a new theory after an adverse decision, or to relitigate matters that were available but not properly asserted.
Denial of Reconsideration
An order denying a motion for reconsideration is generally not itself appealable. The proper remedy is to appeal from the judgment or final order, and the alleged error in denying reconsideration may be assigned as part of the errors affecting that judgment.
This rule prevents parties from multiplying appeals over post-judgment incidents and keeps appellate review focused on the adjudication of rights. The denial is ordinarily interlocutory in relation to the appeal because it leaves the original judgment as the operative final disposition.
Certiorari may be available only in the exceptional situation where the denial is tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. It cannot be used merely to replace a lost appeal or to obtain a second review of ordinary errors of judgment.
One-Motion Rule and Waiver
A party is not allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order. The prohibition applies even if the later motion is given another label, when its substance is to ask the same court again to reconsider the same final disposition.
The first motion must include all grounds then available. Grounds existing and available but omitted are deemed waived, because Rule 37 requires parties to present their post-judgment objections in one complete motion rather than through successive attempts.
The rule against a second motion for reconsideration differs from the limited allowance for a second motion for new trial based on a ground that did not exist or was not available when the first motion was filed. That exception belongs to new trial, not to reconsideration.
Relationship to Other Remedies
Reconsideration is a remedy before finality. Appeal is the ordinary remedy to obtain review by a higher court after the trial court has rendered a final judgment. Petition for relief from judgment, annulment of judgment, and other extraordinary remedies operate only under their own requisites and cannot be used to disregard the rules on timely reconsideration and appeal.
A party who chooses reconsideration should remember that the motion is directed to the trial court's power to correct itself. It is strongest when it identifies a decisive factual or legal error apparent from the record, and weakest when it merely expresses dissatisfaction with the outcome.
The controlling inquiry is whether the judgment, as rendered, should stand before it becomes final. If the defect can be corrected from the existing record under the recognized Rule 37 grounds, reconsideration is the proper post-judgment remedy; if correction requires appellate review, a new trial, or an extraordinary remedy after finality, the appropriate procedural route must be used instead.