III......... IN FINDING THAT PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S SICKNESS WAS SUSTAINED DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND THEREFORE COMPENSABLE IV........ IN SUSTAINING THE POEA IN AWARDING SICKNESS AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS V........ IN NOT FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF REPATRIATION EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. In their Memorandum, petitioners admitted that they inadvertently stated that the instant petition is under Rule 45 but asked for consideration since they had substantially complied with the requisites of Rule 65 and that their petition be given due course for it had merit. Esmso Private respondent countered that even if the instant petition could be considered under Rule 65, the petition should still not prosper for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for not filing the required Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC before going to the Supreme Court. In the interest of justice, we have often treated as special civil actions for certiorari petitions erroneously captioned as petitions for review oncertiorari.[8] Accordingly, we shall now consider the petition. Firstly, with regard to the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, we have long settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non to the institution of a special civil action for certiorari, subject to well-recognized exceptions. The law intends to afford the tribunal, board or office, an opportunity to rectify the errors and mistakes it may have lapsed into before resort to the courts of justice can be had. However, in the case at bar, petitioners had not only failed to explain its failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC, it has also failed to show sufficient justification for dispensing with the requirement. Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield from the adverse consequences of petitioners' own omission to file the required motion for reconsideration.[9] Secondly, petitioners argue mainly that the NLRC erred in affirming the POEA's holdings that petitioner's physician knew of the pacemaker of private respondent and that private respondent was liable for misrepresentation and non-disclosure of his true health condition. But, on this and other points, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the NLRC. The records of the case do not clearly show that the NLRC committed any error in affirming the decision of the POEA, and in ordering the petitioners, jointly and severally, to pay Tuazon or his heirs sickness benefits and permanent disability benefits.