G.R. No. 144275. July 5, 2001.
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ANGELO F. LEYNES in his capacity as General Manager of NHA, and LORNA M. SERASPE in her capacity as Manager of Human Resource Management Department of NHA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ROSE MARIE ALONZO-LEGASTO in capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC-Br 99, Quezon City, MENANDRO G. VALDEZ and RAMON E. ADEA IV, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Menandro G. Valdez and Ramon G. Adea IV were engineers of the National Housing Authority (NHA). On 13 January 2000, the Office of the Ombudsman found them guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On 15 February 2000, private respondents wrote petitioners, informing them that the Ombudsman’s decision was not yet final and executory as they were filing a motion for reconsideration. On 16 February 2000, petitioners served the Ombudsman’s decision on private respondents together with a memorandum from petitioner Leynes informing them of their immediate termination. On 18 February 2000, private respondents filed a Complaint for Injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Petitioners questioned the RTC’s jurisdiction, invoking Section 15 of R.A. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act), which provides that no court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision of the Ombudsman except the Supreme Court. The RTC, in an order dated 9 March 2000, held that Section 15 was not applicable as the reliefs prayed for were not an appeal against the Ombudsman’s decision, and on 14 March 2000, granted the writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the RTC. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition on the ground that petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the trial court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration must be filed before resorting to certiorari to give the lower court an opportunity to correct its errors. However, this rule admits of exceptions. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is not a condition sine qua non when the questions raised on certiorari are the same as those already squarely presented to and passed upon by the lower court. In this case, petitioners had already raised and argued the issue of the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction during the hearings on 24 February 2000 and 29 February 2000, and in a motion to lift the order of status quo ante on 3 March 2000. The trial court squarely ruled on this issue in its order of 9 March 2000. Since the issue raised before the appellate court was the same question already presented to and passed upon by the trial court, filing a motion for reconsideration would have been needless. The rule requiring exhaustion of remedies does not call for an exercise in futility. The Court of Appeals was directed to reinstate the Petition and dispose of it on the merits.