When certiorari requires prior motion for reconsideration?
Petitioners contend that there were fatal procedural defects in respondents petition for certiorari with the CA. They point out that the CA resolved the issue of jurisdiction without waiting for the lower court to first rule on the issue. Also, respondents did not file a motion for reconsideration of the trial courts order granting the writ of preliminary injunction before filing the petition with the CA.
The arguments are unmeritorious. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case. The issue is so basic that it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. In fact, courts may take cognizance of the issue even if not raised by the parties themselves. There is thus no reason to preclude the CA from ruling on this issue even if allegedly, the same has not yet been resolved by the trial court.
As to respondents failure to file a motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the CA, which states:
As to respondents failure to file a motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the CA, which states:
It is now settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is not always sine qua non before availing of the remedy of certiorari. Hence, the general rule of requiring a motion for reconsideration finds no application in a case where what is precisely being assailed is lack of jurisdiction of the respondent court. And considering also the urgent necessity for resolving the issues raised herein, where further delay could prejudice the interests of the government, the haste with which the Solicitor General raised these issues before this Court becomes understandable. (G.R. No. 163445; December 18, 2007)