Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NO. 167620 2007-04-03	CAROLINA B. VILLENA v. ROMEO Z. RUPISAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In any event, the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration before availing of the remedy of certiorari is not always sine qua non.[27] The rules admit of certain exceptions.[28] The instant case is one of those. In this case, a motion for reconsideration would be useless in the light of the declaration of the RTC that the Order of 16 July 2003 is final and executory.
	GR NO. 157752 2005-03-16	SALLY MIGUEL v. JCT GROUP PANGANIBAN, J.
The requirement of a motion for reconsideration, as a prerequisite to the filing of a petition for certiorari, is waived under any of the following conditions: where the decision is a patent nullity, where the issue raised is one purely of law, or where the questions raised are exactly the same as those already squarely presented to and passed upon by the court a quo.[32] Taken together, the circumstances of the present controversy place the case within the exceptions to the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration. As the Court has declared above, the NLRC Decision is a patent nullity and would, if sustained, violate respondents' right to due process.