The rule is, however,
circumscribed by well-defined exceptions,
such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a
quo has no jurisdiction; (2) 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; (3) where
there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any
further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the
petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under
the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where
petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief; (6) 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;
(7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due
process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised
is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public
interest is involved. (BEATRIZ
SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.