6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Furthermore, the issue raised is not exactly novel. This very same issue was set forth in the case of Abraham v. NLRC[22] which is in all fours with this case. In said case, Abraham filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent Philippine Institute of Technical Education (PITE). The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC initially reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. But when respondent moved for reconsideration, the NLRC granted the motion and reinstated the order of dismissal by the Labor Arbiter. Abraham directly filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed Abraham's petition on the ground that she failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of the NLRC reconsidering its previous Resolution. The appellate court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may be given due course. We reversed the appellate court on this point. We ruled that "the NLRC was already given the opportunity to review its ruling and correct itself when the respondent filed its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC's initial ruling in favor of petitioner. In fact, it granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent and reversed its previous ruling and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. It would be an exercise in futility to require the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration since the very issues raised in the petition for certiorari, i.e. whether or not the petitioner was constructively dismissed by the respondent and whether or not she was entitled to her money claims, were already duly passed upon and resolved by the NLRC. Thus the NLRC had more than one opportunity to resolve the issues of the case and in fact reversed itself upon a reconsideration. It is highly improbable or unlikely under the circumstances that the Commission would reverse or set aside its resolution granting a reconsideration."[23] We apply said ruling in the case under consideration. The NLRC Resolution subject of the petition for certiorari was in response to a motion for reconsideration filed by De Guzman. To require Rapid Manpower to file another motion for reconsideration would be futile because the very issues raised in the motion for reconsideration had already been evaluated by the NLRC. Based on the foregoing, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals to give it the opportunity to pass upon the factual issues raised in this case. WHEREFORE, the twin Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 8 December 2008 and 20 March 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 106386 dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Rapid Manpower Consultants, Inc. are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. SO ORDERED. Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Jardeleza,* JJ., concur. * Acting Member per Special Order No. 2188 dated 16 September 2015. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61411 4/6