This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-04-07 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we cannot go along with respondent's contention that petitioner should have first filed a motion for reconsideration before resorting to the remedy of certiorari. While the rule is that before certiorari may be availed of, petitioner must first file a motion for reconsideration with the lower court of the act or order complained of,[9] however, such rule is not without exception. We have, in several instances, dispensed with the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a lower court's ruling, such as: where the proceedings in which the error occurred is a patent nullity;[10] where the question is purely of law; when public interest is involved; where judicial intervention is urgent or its application may cause great and irreparable damage;[11] and where the court a quo has no jurisdiction,[12] as in this case. | |||||