10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly WHEREFORE, the petition for contempt is GRANTED. The assailed Temporary Restraining Order dated July 27, 2009, Order dated July 31, 2009, and Writ of Preliminary Injunction in NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09, and Temporary Restraining Order dated July 27, 2009, Order dated July 31, 2009 and Writ of Preliminary Injunction in NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09 are hereby all LIFTED and SET ASIDE.[13] As a general rule, the Court no longer entertains petitions which have been rendered moot. After all, the decision would have no practical value. Nevertheless, there are exceptions where the Court resolves moot and academic cases, viz: (a) there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (b) the case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; (3) the issues raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar, and the public; and (4) the case was capable of repetition yet evading review.[14] In the case at bar, there are exceptions warranting an affirmative action from the Court. The case definitely involves paramount public interest as it pertains to the Busol Water Reserve, a source of basic necessity of the people of Baguio and other neighboring communities. In addition, the present issues are likely to be repeated especially considering the other cases involving land claimants over the Busol Water Reserve. Exceptions to the requirement of a motion for reconsideration in petitions for certiorari A petition for certiorari is resorted to whenever a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[15] It is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[16] In other words, certiorari is a solution of last resort availed of after all possible legal processes have been exhausted. Thus, it is axiomatic that a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari.[17] This is so considering that the said motion is an existing remedy under the rules for a party to assail a decision or ruling adverse to it. Nonetheless, the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration to be filed before a petition for certiorari is available admits of exception. In Republic of the Philippines v. Pantranco North Express, Inc.,[18] the Court recognized the following exceptions: 1. Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; 2. 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; elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64367 4/13