CHASE POWER LTD. AND CHASE POWER MANAGEMENT INC., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. LYLIHA L. ABELLA-AQUINO, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH…

Chase Power versus Abella-Aquino

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Chase Power Ltd. and Chase Power Management Inc. against a presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to set aside a trial court order issued in February 2014. The case matters far less for its facts than for its procedural lesson: it is a crisp reminder that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non — a prerequisite that cannot be skipped — before a petition for certiorari may be entertained, and that the petitioner must explain any failure to file one.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, assailing an order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila dated February 27, 2014. The petition itself showed on its face that no motion for reconsideration had been filed before the petitioners sought relief under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and it offered no explanation for that omission. The Supreme Court gave the petition short shrift and dismissed it outright.

Facts

The petitioners, Chase Power Ltd. and Chase Power Management Inc., were parties before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, presided over by the public respondent judge. The trial court issued an order dated February 27, 2014, which the petitioners regarded as adverse to them.

Rather than first asking the trial court to reconsider that order, the petitioners went straight to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petition itself revealed the absence of any motion for reconsideration, and it contained no explanation whatsoever for why none had been filed.

On that record, the Supreme Court resolved the petition without reaching the merits of the trial court's order.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for certiorari may proceed without a prior motion for reconsideration filed before the court that issued the challenged order.
• Whether or not the absence of any explanation for the failure to file a motion for reconsideration warrants the dismissal of the petition for certiorari.

Applicable Provisions

The decision invokes Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the provision governing the special civil action of certiorari, and treats a motion for reconsideration as a condition sine qua non — a prerequisite — before that remedy may be used. The Court's ruling turns on the settled requirement that this condition be satisfied, or its absence explained, before certiorari will lie.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may proceed. The petition on its face showed that no such motion had been filed, so the ordinary path to certiorari was not satisfied.

On the second issue, the Court stressed that there was nary an explanation as to the absence of the motion. Because the petitioners offered no justification for not resorting to a motion for reconsideration, the Court gave the petition short shrift. The two points work together: the missing motion is the defect, and the missing explanation forecloses any excuse for it.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain this case as a rule of procedure, stated plainly:

• A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may proceed.
• If no motion for reconsideration was filed, the petition for certiorari must explain why; absent any explanation, the petition will be dismissed.
• The Supreme Court will not entertain a petition for certiorari that shows on its face that this prerequisite was skipped and offers no justification for the omission.

These rules attach to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the provision the decision applies in requiring the prior motion or a sufficient explanation for its absence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari; the petitioners lost, and the trial court's order of February 27, 2014 was left undisturbed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may proceed, and its absence must be explained. Examiners use this case to test the procedural prerequisites of Rule 65 and the consequences of skipping the motion for reconsideration without justification.