Decision 4 G.R. No. 212607 In addition, the CA pointed out several formal defects of the Certiorari Petition, i.e., (1) failure of PDSPI' s counsel to indicate the date of issuance of his MCLE compliance number, and (2) defect in the jurat of the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. 19 PDSPI filed a Motion for Reconsideration 20 dated April 25, 2013, wherein PDSPI attached a photocopy of its counsel's MCLE certification, 21 as well as an affidavit22 executed by its corporate representative, Ms. Edna V. Blach, affirming and authenticating her signature in the jurat of the Verification and Certification ofNon-Forum Shopping. The CA, in its assailed Resolution, denied PDSPI' s Motion for Reconsideration, holding that, while PDSPI was able to cure the formal defects of its Certiorari Petition, the supposed violation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies still warranted the dismissal of the Certiorari Petition. 23 Hence, the instant Petition. Ab is filed his Comment24 dated October 10, 2014, to which PDSPI responded with his Reply to Comment25 dated January 26, 2017. Issue The central question to be resolved by the Court is whether or not the CA was correct in invoking the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies to deny PDSPl's Certiorari Petition assailing the NCIP RHO IV's Order dated January 14, 2013. The Court's Ruling The instant Petition is meritorious. The Court rules in favor of PDSPI. In the main, the CA posits the view that, since PDSPI supposedly had the available remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration against the NCIP RHO IV's Order dismissing outright PDSPI's Memorandum on Appeal, the Certiorari Petition could not prosper as there was still a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy at the disposal of PDSPI, invoking the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s Id. at 27. Id. at 86-95. Id. at93. Id. at 92. Id. at 3 I. Id. at 104-108. Id.atll3-119.