Motion for reconsideration first before certiorari; exceptions

The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari is made. This is to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[1] An omission to comply with this procedural requirement justifies a denial of the writ of certiorari applied for.[2]However, jurisprudence recognizes the following as exceptions to the rule:[3]
(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 proceedings was 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] Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Philtranco Workers Union - Association of Genuine Labor Organizations, G.R. No. 180962, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 340 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division]; Republic v. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/179492.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; Bokingko v. Court of Appeals, 523 Phil. 186 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division]; Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, 479 Phil. 768 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 743 (2002) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]; Gonpu Services Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111897 (Resolution), 334 Phil. 604 (1997) [Per J. Francisco, Third Division].

[2] 680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 206599, September 29, 2014, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/september2014/206599.pdf> [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; People's Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Mendiola, 634 Phil. 111 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division]; Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, 512 Phil. 210 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division], citing Flores v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, 492 Phil. 377 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division] and Siasoco v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 525 (1999) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

[3] Acance v. Court of Appeals, 493 Phil. 676 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]; Gabi Multi Purpose Cooperative v. Republic, 484 Phil. 459 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division], citing Tan v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 570, 576-578 (1997) [Per J. Francisco, Third Division]; Phil. International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit, 461 Phil. 737 (2003) [Per J. Ynares- Santiago, En Banc]; Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, 438 Phil. 417 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; and Indiana Aerospace University v. Commission on Higher Education, 408 Phil. 483 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

Popular Posts