This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-02-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Second, while it is true that petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed CA Decision which normally is a ground for dismissal for being premature[14] and to accord respondent CA opportunity to correct itself,[15] yet the rule admits of exceptions, such as where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless,[16] and where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government.[17] | |||||