Alindao vs Joson : 114132 : November 14, 1996 : J Davide Jr : Third D... 4 of 7 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/114132.htm to Section 6 (Inappealable Disciplinary Cases), Rule V (Appeal), Book VI (Adjudication Rules) and Section 3 (Imposition of Administrative Sanctions Immediately Executory), Rule VI, Book VI (Adjudication Rules) of the 1985 POEA Rules and Regulations. Moreover, while a motion for reconsideration was not expressly prohibited, no provision in the said Rules and Regulations allowed such a motion. Further, even disregarding jurisdictional infirmities, what stands unrebutted is that Hisham committed misrepresentation, breach of contract and illegal exaction. The Office of the Solicitor General continues that under the circumstances, it would have been impossible to require the petitioner to produce a receipt and unreasonable to expect her to have lodged a complaint against Hisham at an earlier time. It then recommends that the petitioners complaint for disbarment be referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation and appropriate action and that the POEA be granted a new period within which to file its [20] Comment. On 3 January 1995, Hisham filed its Comment and admitted the final and executory nature of the Decision on the money claims. However, it points to Section 1, Rule IV, Book VI and Rule V, Book VII of the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulations as support for its thesis that the administrative aspect of the case could not have been deemed final and executory. Hisham then questions the propriety of the petition in light of the non-observance of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, which mandates that the questioned Order should have been first appealed to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment and the [21] Office of the President, with resort to this Court on pure questions of law. On 9 March 1995, the POEA filed its Comment wherein it rejects the applicability of the provisions of the 1985 POEA Rules and Regulations cited by the Solicitor General, as such pertain to disciplinary cases against overseas contract workers, not to agencies. It contends that the applicable provision is Section 18, Rule VI, Book II of the 1985 POEA Rules and [22] Regulations. Moreover, in accordance with POEA Office Order No. 3, Adjudication Office, [23] Series of 1991, it was the POEA Adjudication Office which was empowered to resolve all Motions for Reconsideration filed prior to the effectivity of the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulations. Finally, the POEA claimed that the dispositive portion of the questioned Order dismissing the case merely referred to the recruitment violation and did not include the complaint for money [24] claims. We gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. Hisham and the POEA adopted their respective Comments as their Memoranda, while the petitioner filed her Memorandum on 23 August 1996. The petition must be granted. We first assess the propriety of this special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner has explained why she forthwith availed of this remedy without first filing a motion to reconsider the assailed order of 10 February 1994. Evidently, she anticipated the invocation of [25] and the exhaustion of the doctrines requiring the filing of such motion for reconsideration [26] administrative remedies. We rule in her favor. The petition involves a pure question of law and the challenged order is void for want of jurisdiction on the part of respondent Joson. It has been held that the requirement of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with in the following instances: (1) when the issue raised is one purely of law; (2) where public interest is involved; (3) in cases of urgency; and (4) where special circumstances warrant immediate or [27] On the other hand, among the accepted exceptions to the rule on more direct action. exhaustion of administrative remedies are: (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one; and (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction 1/20/2016 2:10 PM