Certiorari; motion for reconsideration required; exceptions. As a rule, the special civil action ofcertiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure lies only when the lower court has been given the opportunity to correct the error imputed to it through a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution. This rule, though, admits the following exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in cases of urgency. As a fourth exception, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. In this case, aside from the public interest involved in the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth by the Government, it was shown that the issue herein raised by petitioner had already been squarely argued by it and amply discussed by public respondent in its assailed resolution. Hence, the requirement of prior filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with.
Certiorari; appropriateness of remedy. Certiorari is also an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, et al, G.R. No. 159275, August 25, 2010.