Motion for reconsideration; exceptions

The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions[1], such as:(a) Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction

(b) Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; 

(c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; 

(d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; 

(e) Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; 

(f) Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; 

(g) Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; 

(h) Where the proceeding were ex-parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and 

(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.

[1] Republic v. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 313, 323, citing Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 653 Phil. 124, 136-137 (2010).