Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

	GR No. 157086 2013-02-18	LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. LEPANTO CAPATAZ UNION BERSAMIN, J.
Indeed, the Court has consistently stressed the importance of the seasonable filing of a motion for reconsideration prior to filing the certiorari petition. In SMC Quarry 2 Workers Union-February Six Movement (FSM) Local Chapter No. 1564 v. Titan Megabags Industrial Corporation[25] and Manila Pearl Corporation v. Manila Pearl Independent Workers Union,[26] the Court has even warned that a failure to file the motion for reconsideration would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner.[27] Due to its extraordinary nature as a remedy, certiorari is to be availed of only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[28] There is no question that a motion for reconsideration timely filed by Lepanto was an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in view of the possibility of the Secretary of Justice reconsidering her disposition of the matter, thereby according the relief Lepanto was seeking.