Interorient Maritime Enterprises, INC vs NLRC : 115497 : September ... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/115497.htm deceased could have, while in Bangkok, ingested some drugs or other mind-altering substance resulting in his aggressive behavior and untimely demise. The Courts Ruling Procedural and Substantive Defects At the outset, we note that the petition suffers from serious procedural defects that warrant its being dismissed outright. Petitioners acted prematurely, not having filed any motion for reconsideration with the public respondent before bringing the instant petition to this Court. This constitutes a fatal infirmity. x x x The unquestioned rule in this jurisdiction is that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the acts of public respondent. In the instant case, the plain and adequate remedy expressly provided by the law was a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision, based on palpable or patent errors, to be made under oath and filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the questioned decision. [7] (T)he filing of such a motion is intended to afford public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of a re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case. Petitioners inaction or negligence under the circumstances is tantamount to a deprivation of the right and opportunity of the respondent Commission to cleanse itself of an error unwittingly committed or to vindicate itself of an act unfairly imputed. x x x [8] x x x And for failure to avail of the correct remedy expressly provided by law, petitioner has permitted the subject Resolution to be come final and executory after the lapse of the ten day period within which to file such motion for reconsideration. [9] But even if the aforesaid procedural defect were to be overlooked, the instant petition nevertheless suffers from serious substantive flaws. The petition assails the Resolution of the respondent Commission as lacking factual and legal bases to support the same. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court will lie only in cases where a grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction is clearly shown to have been committed by the respondent Commission, and this Courts jurisdiction to review decisions or resolutions of [10] the respondent NLRC does not include a correction of its evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, it is a fundamental rule that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the respondent NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon this Court, unless the petitioner is able to clearly demonstrate that respondent Commission had arbitrarily disregarded evidence before it or had misapprehended evidence to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion if such evidence [11] had been properly appreciated. First Issue: No Direct Evidence of Mental State? At any rate, even disregarding for the nonce the substantive as well as procedural defects discussed above, a judicious review of the records of this case turns up no indication whatsoever that the respondent Commission committed any grave abuse or acted beyond or without jurisdiction. On the contrary, the petitioners contention that the assailed Resolution has 3 of 7 1/20/2016 12:35 PM