406 Phil. 310
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent is hereby ordered to pay complainant the following:Not satisfied with the NLRC Resolution, herein respondents moved for reconsideration thereof.[6] On January 10, 2000, the NLRC granted respondents' motion and reversed its previous ruling as follows:
(1) Full backwages from the time of her dismissal on December 13, 1996 until the finality of this decision.(2) Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement at one month salary per year of service, a fraction of six months being considered as one whole year.(3) Salary differentials(4) 13th month pay(5) Allowances under Wage Order No. 3(6) Attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.
All the rest of the claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
Remand the case to the arbitration branch of origin for the computation of the awards.
SO ORDERED."[5]
"WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is Granted and further the questioned Resolution dated September 30, 1999 is Set Aside. The decision dated February 26, 1998 is reinstated and Affirmed.Aggrieved by the adverse ruling of the NLRC, herein petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.[8]
SO ORDERED."[7]
WHETHER OR NOT THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE FILING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS MANDATORY IN LIGHT OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4(B), RULE 65 OF THE 1997 RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE.In support of her petition, petitioner argues that under the amendment to Section 4 (B), Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure as amended by the En Banc Resolution of this Court dated July 21, 1998,[12] the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before the filing of a petition for certiorari is optional. And even assuming that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is required before a petition for certiorari may be given due course, petitioner argues that the present case falls under the exception that a motion for reconsideration is not required where special circumstances warrant immediate or more direct action. Petitioner maintains that since the NLRC reversed its previous ruling, she deemed it proper not to file a motion for reconsideration because in all likelihood, the NLRC would not reverse itself for a second time. Petitioner therefore prays that the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing her Petition for Certiorari be reversed and set aside. Petitioner also seeks the reversal of the Resolution of the NLRC dismissing her complaint and prays that this court resolve the substantive merits of the case in her favor.II
WHETHER OR NOT THE GRANTING OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION IS VALID/PROPER.III
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS CONSTRUCTIVLEY DISMISSED.IV
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO HER MONEY CLAIMS.[11]
"SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying the judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.Generally, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent tribunal to allow it an opportunity to correct its imputed errors.[13] However, the following have been recognized as exceptions to the rule:
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46."
We hold that the second and fourth exceptions are clearly in point.
(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 proceedings 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.[14] (emphasis supplied)
"If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days."[13] Marawi Marantao General Hospital, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141008, January 16, 2001, 11-12; Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 368 [1999].
*** Note that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC dated August 1, 2000 which took effect on September 1, 2000 amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended by the Resolution dated July 21, 1998.