[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.”
