4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [4] NLRC Resolution 6-8; Rollo, pp. 28-30. [5] Rollo, pp. 57-69. [6] Memorandum for the Petitioner; Rollo, pp. 134-145. [7] Comment, Office of the Solicitor General, Rollo, p. 68 & Memorandum, Petitioner, Rollo, pp. 140-141. [8] 295 SCRA 494, 509 (1998). [9] Pearl S. Buck Foundation, Inc. v. NLRC, 182 SCRA 446, 451 (1990), citing Purefoods Corp. v. NLRC, et al., 171 SCRA 415 (1989). [10] Empire Insurance Company v. NLRC, 294 SCRA 263, 270 (1998) citing Salazar v. NLRC, 256 SCRA 273 (1996); Cando v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 666 (1990); Leopard Security and Investigation Agency v. NLRC, 186 SCRA 756 (1990); Mansalay Catholic School v. NLRC, 172 SCRA 465 (1989); Philippine-Singapore Ports Corporation v. NLRC, 218 SCRA 77 (1993). [11] Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, 299 SCRA 690, 694 (1998). [12] Purefoods Corp. v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415, 425-426 (1989). [13] The recognized exceptions where the special civil action for certiorari will lie even without filing a motion for reconsideration includes: (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 proceeding 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 action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprive 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 proceedings 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 [Tan, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 292 SCRA 452, 457-458 (1998)]. [14] Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union v. Laguesma, 286 SCRA 401, 432 (1998). [15] Rollo, pp 63-64. [16] PMI Colleges v. NLRC, 277 SCRA 462, 474 (1997). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52120 11/12