PERFECT LIGHTS DESIGN CENTER CORP., PETITIONER, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), AND JOVELYN ESTIMADA, RESPONDENTS.
DIAMANTE, F. N., J.:
On December 3, 2013, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[3] of Our Resolution praying that the petition be given due course considering that doing so is necessary to prevent irreparable damage and injury. In essence, petitioner claimed that the case falls under the recognized exceptions to the rule on the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration as a condition precedent to the filing of a petition. Attached to the motion were the pertinent documents and pleadings required under Section 1 of Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court.
We resolve to deny the motion.
The law is clear that a Motion for Reconsideration is a mandatory requirement before one may resort to the special civil action of Certiorari.[4] While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, petitioner has not convinced Us that this case was one of them.[5] Verily, no irreparable injury can be suffered by the petitioner as the kind of injury it claimed was purely monetary.[6] Given that, We hold that petitioners’ failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration was fatal to his petition.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant motion is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Pizarro[*](Acting Chairperson) and Sadang, JJ., concur.
[*] Vice J. C.C. Librea-Leagogo per Office Order No. 412-13-ABR dated November 4, 2013.
[1] Rollo, pp. 100-101.
[2] Id. at 3-19.
[3] Id. at 102-107.
[4] Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 107307, August 11, 1997.
[5] Id.
[6] G.G. Sportswear Manufacturing Corp., et al. vs. Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 184434, February 8, 2010.