Motion for reconsideration required in Certiorari suits; exceptions - G.R. No. 178593

G.R. No. 178593

"x x x.

The petition is bereft of merit.

The well-established rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[21]  A motion for reconsideration of the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC should be seasonably filed as a precondition for pursuing any further or subsequent recourse; otherwise, the order, resolution or decision would become final and executory after ten calendar days from receipt thereof.[22]  The rationale for the rule is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice can be had.[23]  

Of course, the rule is not absolute and jurisprudence has laid down exceptions when the filing of a petition for certiorari is proper notwithstanding the failure to file a motion for reconsideration.  Thus, resort to the courts under Rule 65 is allowed even without a motion for reconsideration first having been filed:

(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 petition 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 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 public interest is involved.[24]

However, petitioner failed to show that this case falls under any of the exceptions.  Here, except for its bare allegation, petitioner failed to present any plausible justification for dispensing with the requirement of a prior motion for reconsideration.  Notably, the petition filed before the CA did not state any reason for its failure to file a motion for reconsideration from the NLRC resolution.  It was only in its motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution dismissing the petition and in the present petition that petitioner justified its non-filing of a motion for reconsideration.  According to petitioner, a motion for reconsideration would be inadequate and useless since the labor agency is bent on immediately proceeding with the execution, levy and sale on execution of the subject properties.  But it is not for petitioner to determine whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration should be dispensed with.  As enunciated in the case of Sim v. National Labor Relations Commission[25]:

          It must be emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion.  Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules.  Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.  To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so, which petitioner failed to do.  Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.

It must be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration and filing it on time are not mere technicalities of procedure.[26]  These are jurisdictional and mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied with.[27]  Thus, failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before availing oneself of the special civil action for certiorari is a fatal infirmity.  

x x x."