Lawyerly

GR No. 201663

2014-03-31

EMMANUEL M. OLORES v. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE

PERALTA, J.

The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any. The rule is well settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari.[17]

GR No. 194104

2013-03-13

NOVATEKNIKA LAND CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

MENDOZA, J.

Unmistakably, before a petition for certiorari can prosper, the petitioner must be able to show, among others, that he does not have any other "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." This remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned order.[20]

GR No. 176184

2012-06-13

ROMEO E. PAULINO v. NLRC

SERENO, J.

The LA, the NLRC and the CA all acknowledged that, notwithstanding petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case for qualified theft,[20] respondent PLDT had adequately established the basis for the company's loss of confidence as a just cause to terminate petitioner. This Court finds that approach to be correct, since proof beyond reasonable doubt of an employee's misconduct is not required in dismissing an employee.[21] Rather, as opposed to the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard of evidence required in criminal cases, labor suits require only substantial evidence to prove the validity of the dismissal.[22]

GR No. 190795

2011-07-06

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC)

SERENO, J.

Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for certiorari may be filed when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law". The "plain" and "adequate remedy" referred to in Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. [30] Thus, it is a well-settled rule that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. [31] The purpose of this rule is to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself. [32] However, this requirement is not an ironclad rule. The prior filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with if petitioners are able to show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so. [33] The Court may brush aside the procedural barrier and take cognizance of the petition if it raises an issue of paramount importance and constitutional significance. [34] Thus: True, we had, on certain occasions, entertained direct recourse to this Court as an exception to the rule on hierarchy of courts. In those exceptional cases, however, we recognized an exception because it was dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy. [35]

GR No. 181068

2010-05-04

PEOPLE'S AIR CARGO v. FRANCISCO G. MENDIOLA

MENDOZA, J.

Certiorari is not a defense against the unfavorable consequences of a failure to file the required motion for reconsideration. Petitioner may not designate to itself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. The plain and adequate remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the court or agency to rectify its mistakes without the intervention of a higher court. To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so.[25] In this case, the petitioner failed. Thus, petitioner should have first interposed a motion for reconsideration.

GR No. 169228

2009-09-11

ALEXANDRA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

CARPIO, J.

The plain and adequate remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision.[26] The purpose of this requirement is to enable the court or agency to rectify its mistakes without the intervention of a higher court.[27] To dispense with this requirement, there must be a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for the failure to comply with the requirement.[28] Petitioner may not arrogate to itself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.[29]

GR No. 157707

2008-10-29

MARCIAL FAJARDO v. CA

QUISUMBING, ACTING C.J.

At the outset, in our view, this case warrants an outright dismissal. Time and again, we have ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before resorting to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any. [17] While this rule admits of exceptions,[18] none is present in this case.

GR NO. 155374

2007-11-20

DR. ANTONIO C. SANTOS v. CA

CARPIO, J.

The general rule is that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before a party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[15] While this rule is subject to exceptions, petitioner fails to show that this case falls under any of the exceptions. Besides, in this case, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration but, without waiting for its resolution, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner claims that the resolution of his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration is not forthcoming. In the same way that the parties may not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not,[16] it is not up to petitioner to preempt the trial court's action on his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner's recourse should have been to move for the trial court's resolution of his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration instead of filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petition for certiorari was prematurely filed.

GR No. 143688

2007-08-17

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. BELINDA D. BUNA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

x x x x. (Emphasis supplied) A motion for reconsideration of an assailed decision is deemed a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law.[18] The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action of certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[19] Failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before availing of the special civil action of certiorari is a fatal infirmity.[20] This rule is subject to certain recognized exceptions, to wit:a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;

GR NO. 148628

2007-02-28

JOSE SALINAS v. DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES

CORONA, J.

A motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[14] The NLRC cannot be denied its right to review its pronouncements. "On policy considerations, such prerequisite would provide an expeditious termination to labor disputes and assist in the decongestion of court dockets by obviating improvident and unnecessary recourse to judicial proceedings."[15]

GR NO. 148628

2007-02-28

JOSE SALINAS v. DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES

CORONA, J.

Thus, we are in accord with the Court of Appeals in holding that the petition for certiorari[18] must fail. "Certiorari is not a shield from the adverse consequences of an omission to file the required motion for reconsideration."[19]

GR NO. 158707

2006-11-27

COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Since only substantial evidence is required, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, reliance by the NLRC and CA upon the stenographic notes on the testimony of Internal Auditor Vargas in the preliminary investigation of the criminal case is misplaced. A labor arbiter or tribunal may legally sustain an employee's dismissal for loss of trust and confidence even if the employee has not been convicted in a criminal case arising from the same act.[40] The dropping of the charges by the prosecutor[41] or the acquittal of the employee[42] would not necessarily negate the existence of lack of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal.

GR NO. 148544

2006-07-12

FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

A motion for reconsideration of an assailed decision is deemed a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law.[12] The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[13] This rule is subject to certain recognized exceptions, to wit:(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;

GR NO. 161110

2006-03-30

PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

PANGANIBAN, CJ

(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved." [11] Petitioner asserts, however, that the CA should not have applied the above exceptions, given that respondents had in fact sought a reconsideration of the RTC's ruling prior to filing the certiorari case with the appellate court. We disagree.

GR NO. 140102

2006-02-09

UNION INDUSTRIES v. GASPAR VALES PRUDENCIO CERDENIA

CORONA, J.

We deny the prayer. As a rule, factual findings of the labor arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[13] Our jurisdiction in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law.[14]

GR NO. 141796

2005-06-15

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Here, petitioners filed the instant petitions for certiorari without interposing a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan. Section 1 of the same Rule 65 requires that petitioners must not only show that the trial court, in issuing the questioned Resolution, "acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," but that "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[17] We have held that the "plain," "speedy," and "adequate remedy" referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned Order or Resolution.[18] It bears stressing that the strict application of this rule will also prevent unnecessary and premature resort to appellate proceedings. We thus cannot countenance petitioners' disregard of this procedural norm and frustrate its purpose of attaining speedy, inexpensive, and orderly judicial proceedings.

GR NO. 159022

2005-02-23

MAYOR EDGARDO G. FLORES v. SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF PAMPANGA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The administrative complaint against petitioner was filed with respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga in accordance with the above provision. After receiving the Order of respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan preventively suspending him from office, petitioner should have filed a motion for reconsideration in order to give the latter the opportunity to correct itself if there was any error on its part. Such motion is a condition sine qua non before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[5] Section 1 of the same Rule requires that petitioner must not only show that respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan, in issuing the questioned Order, "acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," but that "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[6] We have held that the "plain" and "adequate remedy" referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order or Resolution.[7] Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.[8] To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so.[9] This, petitioner failed to do. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly held that petitioner should have first interposed a motion for reconsideration of the questioned Order issued by respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

	GR No. 201663 2014-03-31	EMMANUEL M. OLORES v. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE PERALTA, J.
The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any. The rule is well settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari.[17]
	GR No. 194104 2013-03-13	NOVATEKNIKA LAND CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK MENDOZA, J.
Unmistakably, before a petition for certiorari can prosper, the petitioner must be able to show, among others, that he does not have any other "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." This remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned order.[20]
	GR No. 176184 2012-06-13	ROMEO E. PAULINO v. NLRC SERENO, J.
The LA, the NLRC and the CA all acknowledged that, notwithstanding petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case for qualified theft,[20] respondent PLDT had adequately established the basis for the company's loss of confidence as a just cause to terminate petitioner. This Court finds that approach to be correct, since proof beyond reasonable doubt of an employee's misconduct is not required in dismissing an employee.[21] Rather, as opposed to the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard of evidence required in criminal cases, labor suits require only substantial evidence to prove the validity of the dismissal.[22]
	GR No. 190795 2011-07-06	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) SERENO, J.
Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for certiorari may be filed when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law". The "plain" and "adequate remedy" referred to in Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. [30] Thus, it is a well-settled rule that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. [31] The purpose of this rule is to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself. [32] However, this requirement is not an ironclad rule. The prior filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with if petitioners are able to show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so. [33] The Court may brush aside the procedural barrier and take cognizance of the petition if it raises an issue of paramount importance and constitutional significance. [34] Thus: True, we had, on certain occasions, entertained direct recourse to this Court as an exception to the rule on hierarchy of courts. In those exceptional cases, however, we recognized an exception because it was dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy. [35]
	GR No. 181068 2010-05-04	PEOPLE'S AIR CARGO v. FRANCISCO G. MENDIOLA MENDOZA, J.
Certiorari is not a defense against the unfavorable consequences of a failure to file the required motion for reconsideration. Petitioner may not designate to itself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. The plain and adequate remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the court or agency to rectify its mistakes without the intervention of a higher court. To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so.[25] In this case, the petitioner failed. Thus, petitioner should have first interposed a motion for reconsideration.
	GR No. 169228 2009-09-11	ALEXANDRA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CARPIO, J.
The plain and adequate remedy referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision.[26] The purpose of this requirement is to enable the court or agency to rectify its mistakes without the intervention of a higher court.[27] To dispense with this requirement, there must be a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for the failure to comply with the requirement.[28] Petitioner may not arrogate to itself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.[29]
	GR No. 157707 2008-10-29	MARCIAL FAJARDO v. CA QUISUMBING, ACTING C.J.
At the outset, in our view, this case warrants an outright dismissal. Time and again, we have ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before resorting to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any. [17] While this rule admits of exceptions,[18] none is present in this case.
	GR NO. 155374 2007-11-20	DR. ANTONIO C. SANTOS v. CA CARPIO, J.
The general rule is that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before a party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[15] While this rule is subject to exceptions, petitioner fails to show that this case falls under any of the exceptions. Besides, in this case, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration but, without waiting for its resolution, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner claims that the resolution of his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration is not forthcoming. In the same way that the parties may not arrogate to themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not,[16] it is not up to petitioner to preempt the trial court's action on his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner's recourse should have been to move for the trial court's resolution of his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration instead of filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petition for certiorari was prematurely filed.
	GR No. 143688 2007-08-17	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. BELINDA D. BUNA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
x x x x. (Emphasis supplied) A motion for reconsideration of an assailed decision is deemed a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law.[18] The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action of certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[19] Failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before availing of the special civil action of certiorari is a fatal infirmity.[20] This rule is subject to certain recognized exceptions, to wit:a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
	GR NO. 148628 2007-02-28	JOSE SALINAS v. DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES CORONA, J.
A motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[14] The NLRC cannot be denied its right to review its pronouncements. "On policy considerations, such prerequisite would provide an expeditious termination to labor disputes and assist in the decongestion of court dockets by obviating improvident and unnecessary recourse to judicial proceedings."[15]
	GR NO. 148628 2007-02-28	JOSE SALINAS v. DIGITAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES CORONA, J.
Thus, we are in accord with the Court of Appeals in holding that the petition for certiorari[18] must fail. "Certiorari is not a shield from the adverse consequences of an omission to file the required motion for reconsideration."[19]
	GR NO. 158707 2006-11-27	COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO v. YSAGANI V. PAEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Since only substantial evidence is required, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, reliance by the NLRC and CA upon the stenographic notes on the testimony of Internal Auditor Vargas in the preliminary investigation of the criminal case is misplaced. A labor arbiter or tribunal may legally sustain an employee's dismissal for loss of trust and confidence even if the employee has not been convicted in a criminal case arising from the same act.[40] The dropping of the charges by the prosecutor[41] or the acquittal of the employee[42] would not necessarily negate the existence of lack of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal.
	GR NO. 148544 2006-07-12	FELIX M. CRUZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A motion for reconsideration of an assailed decision is deemed a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law.[12] The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.[13] This rule is subject to certain recognized exceptions, to wit:(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
	GR NO. 161110 2006-03-30	PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES PANGANIBAN, CJ
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved." [11] Petitioner asserts, however, that the CA should not have applied the above exceptions, given that respondents had in fact sought a reconsideration of the RTC's ruling prior to filing the certiorari case with the appellate court. We disagree.
	GR NO. 140102 2006-02-09	UNION INDUSTRIES v. GASPAR VALES PRUDENCIO CERDENIA CORONA, J.
We deny the prayer. As a rule, factual findings of the labor arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[13] Our jurisdiction in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law.[14]
	GR NO. 141796 2005-06-15	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Here, petitioners filed the instant petitions for certiorari without interposing a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan. Section 1 of the same Rule 65 requires that petitioners must not only show that the trial court, in issuing the questioned Resolution, "acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," but that "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[17] We have held that the "plain," "speedy," and "adequate remedy" referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned Order or Resolution.[18] It bears stressing that the strict application of this rule will also prevent unnecessary and premature resort to appellate proceedings. We thus cannot countenance petitioners' disregard of this procedural norm and frustrate its purpose of attaining speedy, inexpensive, and orderly judicial proceedings.
	GR NO. 159022 2005-02-23	MAYOR EDGARDO G. FLORES v. SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF PAMPANGA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The administrative complaint against petitioner was filed with respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga in accordance with the above provision. After receiving the Order of respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan preventively suspending him from office, petitioner should have filed a motion for reconsideration in order to give the latter the opportunity to correct itself if there was any error on its part. Such motion is a condition sine qua non before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[5] Section 1 of the same Rule requires that petitioner must not only show that respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan, in issuing the questioned Order, "acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," but that "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[6] We have held that the "plain" and "adequate remedy" referred to in Section 1 of Rule 65 is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Order or Resolution.[7] Petitioner may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.[8] To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so.[9] This, petitioner failed to do. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly held that petitioner should have first interposed a motion for reconsideration of the questioned Order issued by respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION v. CA