6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly substantial issues were raised and there was substantial compliance with the requirements for filing of the petition.[17] Rapid Manpower explains that it honestly believed that NLRC would no longer have any reason to deviate from its latest findings considering that the findings are in the motion for reconsideration filed by De Guzman. [18] Rapid Manpower then argues that there is no factual nor legal basis in awarding the claim for underpayment and/or unpaid salaries because the burden to prove underpayment and non-payment rests on the employee alleging it. Rapid Manpower claims that De Guzman failed to substantiate his claims. It avers that the award of attorney's fees likewise has no factual and legal justification. Finally, Rapid Manpower maintains that Besilda Felipe, being the general manager of Rapid Manpower, cannot be held personally accountable for any liability which may arise from De Guzman's employment overseas.[19] The principal issue in this case is whether the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals should be dismissed for failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC. As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The rationale for the rule is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice can be had.[20] However, jurisprudence allows exceptions to the rule in the following cases: a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; b) 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; c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the petition is perishable; d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; f) 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; g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.[21] The second exception applies in the instant case. The NLRC, in its 24 September 2008 Resolution was given the opportunity to reevaluate its findings and reconsider its ruling when De Guzman himself filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the 18 August 2005 NLRC resolution denying his monetary claims. The issues raised in the certiorari proceedings are similar to those passed upon and considered by the NLRC. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61411 3/6