Motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari; exceptions.

[G.R. No. 140777.  April 8, 2005]

ANTONIO ABACAN, JR., RUFO C. VENUS, JR., ENRIQUETO I. MAGPANTAY and MARIETA Y. PALANCA, petitioners, vs. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., respondent.

“x x x.

Second issue. Whether a motion for reconsideration is dispensable in the case at bar.  We rule in the affirmative.

Indeed, it is settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action forcertiorari.  This is to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself.^[29] It is also the rule that since an order denying a motion to dismiss is only interlocutory, which is neither appealable until final judgment nor could it generally be assailed oncertiorari, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an answer and interpose as defenses the objections raised in his motion to dismiss.^[30]

However, the following have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule:

(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 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.^[31] (Emphasis supplied)

Circumstances (b) and (d) above are present in this case.

In Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc. vs. Palmos,^[32] which is being invoked by petitioners, we held that:

…A prior motion for reconsideration is not indispensable for commencement of certiorari proceedings if the errors sought to be corrected in such proceedings had been duly heard and passed upon, or were similar to the issues already resolved by the tribunal or agency below.  Accordingly, the Court has excused the non-filing of a motion for reconsideration when such a motion would be basicallypro forma in nature and content, and where, as in the present Petition, the questions raised are essentially legal in nature.^[33]

We agree with the argument of petitioners that a motion for reconsideration of the order of the trial court, prior to the filing of their petition for certiorari before the CA, was dispensable since the questions involved are essentially legal in nature and the errors sought to be corrected had already been heard and passed upon.  One of the errors sought to be corrected is the ruling of the trial court that there exists a cause of action against petitioners.  This issue that was raised in the motion to dismiss has been heard and passed upon by the trial court.

X x x.”