A Legal Article in the Philippine Context

I. Introduction

A petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy. It is not an appeal. It is not designed to correct every alleged error of a court, tribunal, board, officer, or quasi-judicial agency. Its function is narrower: to correct acts done without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, where there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Because Rule 65 is extraordinary, courts strictly examine petitions filed under it. Many Rule 65 petitions are dismissed outright for procedural defects, lateness, wrong remedy, lack of grave abuse, failure to attach material portions of the record, defective verification or certification, forum shopping, improper service, failure to implead indispensable parties, or because the alleged errors are merely errors of judgment.

After dismissal, the losing petitioner commonly asks: Can a motion for reconsideration be filed? What should it contain? Does it suspend the period to elevate the case? What errors may be raised? Can the dismissal be reversed?

In Philippine practice, a motion for reconsideration after dismissal of a Rule 65 petition is a critical pleading. It may be the petitioner’s last realistic chance to persuade the same court to reinstate the petition, correct a procedural dismissal, clarify misunderstood facts, or show that the court overlooked controlling law or material evidence.

This article discusses the nature, purpose, timing, contents, grounds, limitations, strategy, and consequences of filing a motion for reconsideration after the dismissal of a Rule 65 petition.

II. Rule 65 in Brief

Rule 65 covers three extraordinary writs:

Certiorari — to annul or modify proceedings of a tribunal, board, officer, or court acting without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Prohibition — to command a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person to desist from further proceedings when acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
Mandamus — to compel performance of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station, or to compel admission to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the petitioner is entitled.

The most common Rule 65 remedy is certiorari, often used to challenge interlocutory orders, quasi-judicial rulings, administrative decisions where no appeal is adequate, and acts allegedly tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

III. Dismissal of a Rule 65 Petition

A Rule 65 petition may be dismissed in several ways.

A. Outright dismissal

The court may dismiss the petition without requiring comment if it is patently without merit, procedurally defective, late, or plainly not proper.

B. Dismissal after comment

The court may require the respondent to comment and later dismiss after considering the submissions.

C. Dismissal after hearing or submission

In rare or more developed cases, the petition may be dismissed after oral argument, hearing, or full submission of memoranda.

D. Dismissal on procedural grounds

The dismissal may be based on noncompliance with procedural requirements.

E. Dismissal on substantive grounds

The dismissal may be based on the court’s finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion, or that the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal.

The type of dismissal matters because it affects the proper content and strategy of the motion for reconsideration.

IV. What Is a Motion for Reconsideration?

A motion for reconsideration is a pleading asking the same court that issued the dismissal to re-examine its ruling.

It is not a new petition. It is not a second chance to file a substantially different case. It is a request for the court to correct, modify, or reverse its own ruling because of matters it allegedly overlooked, misunderstood, misapplied, or failed to appreciate.

After dismissal of a Rule 65 petition, the motion for reconsideration may ask the court to:

set aside the dismissal;
reinstate the petition;
require the respondent to comment;
give due course to the petition;
correct a procedural ruling;
consider attached documents;
excuse a technical defect in the interest of substantial justice;
clarify or modify the ruling;
resolve overlooked issues;
reconsider the finding that appeal was adequate;
reconsider the finding that no grave abuse existed; or
grant the principal relief prayed for in the petition.

V. Is a Motion for Reconsideration Allowed After Dismissal of a Rule 65 Petition?

Generally, yes. A party whose Rule 65 petition has been dismissed may file a motion for reconsideration within the period allowed by the Rules, unless the applicable court rule, special rule, or resolution states otherwise.

However, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is governed by strict rules. It must be timely, proper in form, specific in grounds, and not pro forma.

A motion for reconsideration is not guaranteed to be granted. Courts frequently deny motions that merely repeat arguments already considered, raise no substantial matter, or fail to cure the defect that caused dismissal.

VI. Period to File the Motion for Reconsideration

In ordinary civil procedure, a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order is generally filed within the period to appeal or within the period provided by the applicable rules. In many court proceedings, the practical period is 15 days from notice of the order or decision.

For Rule 65 petitions, the proper period depends on:

the court where the petition was filed;
the nature of the assailed order;
whether the dismissal is final;
whether a special rule applies;
whether the proceeding is civil, criminal, labor, administrative, election-related, or quasi-judicial;
whether the court resolution expressly states the period;
whether the petition was filed in the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, or Supreme Court.

The safest practice is to file the motion for reconsideration within the period stated in the dismissal resolution. If no period is stated, counsel should apply the relevant rules for the court and type of proceeding and avoid delay.

Missing the period may make the dismissal final.

VII. Counting the Period

The period is counted from receipt of the order or resolution dismissing the Rule 65 petition.

Important points:

The date of receipt by counsel generally controls if the party is represented by counsel.
Service through electronic means, registered mail, personal service, courier, or court notice may affect counting.
If notice is served electronically, counsel should carefully verify the applicable e-service rules.
The first day is usually excluded and the last day included, subject to rules on weekends and holidays.
If the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, filing on the next working day may be allowed under general procedural rules.
Counsel should not rely on uncertain extensions unless clearly available.
Filing earlier is safer.

A motion filed even one day late may be denied outright.

VIII. Does the Motion for Reconsideration Suspend the Period to Appeal or Elevate the Case?

A timely and proper motion for reconsideration may interrupt or affect the finality of the dismissal, depending on the applicable procedural context.

However, a pro forma motion may not stop the running of the period. A motion is pro forma when it does not comply with requirements, fails to point out specific findings or conclusions allegedly contrary to law or evidence, merely repeats previous arguments without addressing the ruling, or is filed only to delay.

Because the effect on finality is crucial, the motion should be substantial, specific, timely, and properly served.

After denial of the motion for reconsideration, the petitioner must carefully determine the remaining remedy and remaining period, if any. Depending on the court and case, the next remedy may be a petition for review, appeal by certiorari, another Rule 65 petition only in exceptional circumstances, or no further ordinary remedy.

IX. Motion for Reconsideration Versus Appeal

A Rule 65 petition is not an appeal. Likewise, a motion for reconsideration after dismissal of a Rule 65 petition is not a substitute for appeal.

The motion should not merely argue that the court “decided wrongly” as if the case were on ordinary appeal. It should confront the specific reasons for dismissal and show why reconsideration is warranted under Rule 65 standards.

If the Rule 65 petition was dismissed because the remedy should have been appeal, the motion must explain why appeal was not plain, speedy, or adequate, or why the questioned act involved grave abuse of discretion beyond ordinary error.

If the petition was dismissed for lack of grave abuse, the motion must show that the act complained of was not merely wrong, but capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, despotic, or performed in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty required by law.

X. Common Grounds for Dismissal and How to Address Them in the Motion

A. Late filing of the Rule 65 petition

Rule 65 petitions generally must be filed within the prescribed period, commonly reckoned from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, or from denial of a prior motion for reconsideration when such prior motion is required or proper.

If dismissed as late, the motion for reconsideration should address:

exact date of receipt of the assailed order;
date of filing of the motion for reconsideration before the lower tribunal, if any;
date of receipt of denial;
date of filing of the Rule 65 petition;
whether the period was interrupted;
whether the petition was timely under the rules;
whether there was excusable confusion due to service, registry date, or electronic notice;
whether exceptional circumstances justify relaxation.

The motion should include documentary proof such as registry receipts, email notices, proof of service, stamped copies, or affidavits.

B. Failure to file prior motion for reconsideration before the lower tribunal

As a general rule, before filing certiorari under Rule 65, the petitioner must first file a motion for reconsideration with the tribunal, court, or officer that issued the assailed order. This gives the lower body an opportunity to correct itself.

If the Rule 65 petition was dismissed for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration, the motion after dismissal should explain whether an exception applies.

Recognized exceptions may include situations where:

the order is a patent nullity;
the issue is purely legal;
urgent necessity exists;
a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
the petitioner was deprived of due process;
the proceedings were ex parte or the petitioner had no opportunity to be heard;
the issue raised has already been passed upon;
the respondent tribunal acted with obvious lack of jurisdiction;
the matter is of public interest;
the delay would cause irreparable injury;
the assailed act is clearly oppressive;
the motion would not be adequate to prevent injury.

The motion should not merely say “exceptions apply.” It must show concrete facts.

C. Wrong remedy: appeal was available

Rule 65 is available only when there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. If the petition was dismissed because appeal was available, the motion must show why appeal was not adequate under the circumstances.

Arguments may include:

the assailed order was interlocutory and not appealable;
appeal would not prevent irreparable injury;
the act was jurisdictional, not merely erroneous;
the tribunal acted in a manner amounting to grave abuse;
the ordinary remedy was ineffective;
the issue required immediate correction;
the order was void;
appeal would be too slow to prevent the harm;
the petitioner had no other adequate remedy.

Courts are cautious here. The mere fact that appeal is slower or less convenient does not automatically make it inadequate.

D. No grave abuse of discretion

This is a common substantive reason for dismissal. The motion should identify the court’s specific finding and explain why the assailed act was not merely erroneous but gravely abusive.

It should show:

the legal duty ignored;
the rule violated;
the jurisdictional boundary crossed;
the due process violation committed;
the arbitrary or capricious character of the act;
the absence of evidentiary basis;
the tribunal’s refusal to consider controlling facts;
the patent contradiction with law or jurisprudence;
the serious injustice caused.

A bare disagreement with the lower court’s reasoning is insufficient.

E. Petition raised factual issues

Rule 65 generally does not review factual findings unless the factual determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

If dismissed for raising factual issues, the motion should explain that the petition does not seek reweighing of evidence but challenges the manner by which the tribunal acted, such as:

ignoring undisputed evidence;
relying on non-existent evidence;
denying due process;
deciding without substantial evidence;
applying a wrong legal standard;
arbitrarily excluding material evidence;
making findings contradicted by the record;
refusing to perform a mandatory duty.

F. Failure to attach material portions of the record

Rule 65 petitions must be accompanied by certified true copies of the assailed judgment, order, or resolution and relevant pleadings and documents.

If dismissed because of incomplete attachments, the motion should:

attach the missing documents;
explain why they were omitted;
show that the omission was not intended to mislead;
argue that the attached documents are now sufficient for review;
invoke substantial justice if warranted;
explain the urgency or excusable mistake.

The omitted documents should be clearly identified and paginated.

G. Defective verification

A petition must generally be verified. If dismissed for defective verification, the motion should cure the defect by submitting a proper verification and explaining the error.

Courts may treat verification defects as formal rather than jurisdictional in proper cases, but repeated or serious defects may be fatal.

H. Defective certification against forum shopping

A certification against forum shopping is mandatory. Defects may be serious.

If dismissed for defective certification, the motion should:

submit a corrected certification;
explain who signed and why;
show authority of signatory, if corporate or representative;
attach board resolution, secretary’s certificate, SPA, or proof of authority;
disclose related cases, if any;
explain that there was no deliberate concealment;
show absence of forum shopping.

Failure to disclose related cases is more serious than a mere formal defect.

I. Forum shopping

If the petition was dismissed for forum shopping, the motion must carefully address identity of parties, rights asserted, reliefs sought, causes of action, and risk of conflicting decisions.

The motion should show that:

the cases involve different causes of action;
the reliefs are different;
the parties are not identical or substantially identical;
the issues are not identical;
one case does not amount to res judicata in the other;
there was full disclosure;
there was no willful and deliberate forum shopping.

Forum shopping is a serious procedural violation. The motion must be precise and candid.

J. Failure to implead indispensable parties

If dismissed because indispensable parties were not impleaded, the motion may ask for leave to amend and implead them, if procedurally permissible.

The motion should explain:

why the party was omitted;
why amendment should be allowed;
why no prejudice will occur;
why dismissal is too harsh;
how the omitted party will be affected;
whether summons or service can be made.

However, if the omission is jurisdictionally fatal or the period has lapsed, relief may be difficult.

K. Mootness

If the petition was dismissed as moot, the motion should show that an actual controversy remains or that exceptions to mootness apply.

Possible arguments include:

collateral consequences remain;
issue is capable of repetition yet evading review;
public interest is involved;
grave constitutional issues are present;
respondent voluntarily ceased the act but may repeat it;
damages or continuing effects remain;
the order still affects rights.

L. Lack of jurisdiction of the court where Rule 65 was filed

If dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the motion must confront the jurisdictional issue directly.

The petitioner should examine whether the petition should have been filed with:

the Regional Trial Court;
the Court of Appeals;
the Sandiganbayan;
the Court of Tax Appeals;
the Supreme Court;
a special court or tribunal.

If filed in the wrong court, the motion may ask for reconsideration only if the court actually has jurisdiction or if dismissal was based on a mistaken understanding. Courts generally do not transfer improperly filed Rule 65 petitions as a matter of right.

M. Violation of hierarchy of courts

Rule 65 petitions are sometimes filed directly with a higher court, bypassing lower courts. If dismissed for violation of hierarchy, the motion must show exceptional and compelling reasons for direct resort.

Possible reasons include:

national interest;
serious constitutional issues;
transcendental importance;
urgency;
pure questions of law;
need for immediate resolution;
risk of conflicting rulings;
public welfare;
lack of adequate relief in lower courts.

For ordinary private disputes, this ground is difficult to overcome.

XI. Essential Parts of the Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration after dismissal of a Rule 65 petition should be carefully structured.

A. Caption

The caption should match the dismissed Rule 65 case, including parties, docket number, and court.

B. Title

Use a clear title, such as:

Motion for Reconsideration

Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated [date]

C. Introduction

State the relief sought briefly:

Petitioner respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Resolution dated [date], which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari, and prays that the same be set aside and that the Petition be reinstated or given due course.

D. Timeliness

State when the dismissal resolution was received and why the motion is timely.

Example:

Petitioner received the Resolution on [date]. This Motion is filed within the reglementary period.

E. Grounds

List the specific grounds. Avoid vague grounds such as “the court erred.” Instead, state:

The Petition was timely filed.
Petitioner was not required to file a prior motion for reconsideration because an exception applies.
Appeal was not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
The assailed order was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
The procedural defect has been cured and does not warrant dismissal.
The court overlooked material facts or controlling law.

F. Argument

Develop each ground with facts, law, and reference to the record.

G. Prayer

Ask for precise relief:

reconsideration;
setting aside of dismissal;
reinstatement;
giving due course;
requiring comment;
issuance of TRO or writ of preliminary injunction, if still necessary;
other just and equitable relief.

H. Notice of hearing, if required

Depending on the court and applicable rules, motions may require compliance with notice and hearing requirements or written submission rules. Counsel should follow the applicable procedural regime.

I. Proof of service

Serve copies on adverse parties and attach proof of service.

J. Attachments

Attach missing or corrective documents, if the dismissal involved defects.

XII. What the Motion Should Not Do

A motion for reconsideration should not:

merely copy the petition;
insult the court;
accuse the court of bias without basis;
raise entirely new issues that could have been raised earlier;
rely on emotional appeals;
ignore the reason for dismissal;
misstate the record;
conceal related cases;
attach irrelevant documents;
use excessive rhetoric;
file only to delay;
repeat arguments without explaining what the court overlooked.

A motion for reconsideration should be surgical. It must identify the precise error in the dismissal and fix it.

XIII. Pro Forma Motions

A pro forma motion for reconsideration is dangerous because it may not interrupt the period of finality.

A motion may be considered pro forma if it:

merely reiterates previous arguments without addressing the ruling;
fails to specify findings or conclusions allegedly unsupported by law or evidence;
contains general allegations;
is filed for delay;
does not comply with procedural requirements;
raises no substantial argument;
is not supported by facts or law;
fails to cure the defect that caused dismissal.

To avoid being pro forma, the motion should directly engage with the dismissal resolution.

XIV. Motion for Reconsideration After Dismissal for Technical Defects

When the Rule 65 petition was dismissed for technical defects, the motion must both explain and cure.

Examples:

A. Missing certified true copy

Attach the certified true copy and explain why it was omitted.

B. Missing pleadings

Attach relevant pleadings and explain materiality.

C. Defective verification

Submit corrected verification.

D. Defective certification

Submit corrected certification and authority.

E. Improper proof of service

Submit proof of service or explain compliance.

F. Wrong pagination or illegible documents

Submit legible and organized copies.

The court is more likely to reconsider when the defect is minor, excusable, promptly corrected, and no prejudice is caused.

XV. Motion for Reconsideration After Dismissal on the Merits

When the court dismissed because it found no grave abuse, the motion must be substantive.

It should show that the court overlooked:

a mandatory rule;
a jurisdictional fact;
controlling jurisprudence;
an undisputed document;
a due process violation;
a legal standard;
a clear contradiction in the assailed order;
the absence of evidence supporting the tribunal’s act.

The petitioner should not merely say the lower tribunal was wrong. The petitioner must show that the lower tribunal acted in a manner that Rule 65 can correct.

XVI. Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Central Standard

A Rule 65 petition rises or falls on grave abuse of discretion.

Grave abuse is not simple legal error. It is not every mistake in appreciating facts. It is not a substitute for appeal.

Grave abuse exists when the respondent court or tribunal acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, or when it so grossly disregards law or evidence that its act amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Examples may include:

deciding without jurisdiction;
denying a party the right to be heard;
resolving an issue without notice;
disregarding an express statutory command;
refusing to perform a ministerial duty;
issuing an order unsupported by any evidence;
applying a rule in a patently arbitrary way;
ignoring controlling jurisprudence;
refusing to admit clearly admissible evidence without basis;
dismissing a case despite obvious compliance;
acting beyond the issues submitted;
imposing a remedy not authorized by law;
proceeding despite lack of indispensable parties;
enforcing a void order.

The motion for reconsideration should connect the facts of the case to this standard.

XVII. Prior Motion for Reconsideration Before Filing Rule 65

A frequent source of confusion is the relationship between two different motions for reconsideration:

the prior motion for reconsideration filed before the lower court, tribunal, or officer before filing the Rule 65 petition; and
the motion for reconsideration after dismissal filed before the court that dismissed the Rule 65 petition.

They are different.

The prior motion for reconsideration is generally required before certiorari because the lower tribunal should be given an opportunity to correct its error.

The motion for reconsideration after dismissal asks the reviewing court to reconsider its dismissal of the Rule 65 petition.

Failure to file the first may lead to dismissal of the Rule 65 petition. Failure to file the second may affect the availability of further review, depending on the procedural setting.

XVIII. Effect of Denial of the Motion for Reconsideration

If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the dismissal may become final unless the petitioner timely pursues an available further remedy.

Possible further remedies may include:

petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, if questions of law are involved and the case is from a court whose decisions are reviewable that way;
appeal or review under special rules, depending on the court;
a new Rule 65 petition only in exceptional cases where the denial itself is alleged to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion and no other adequate remedy exists;
no further remedy, if finality has attached and no extraordinary basis exists.

The correct next step depends on the court that dismissed the Rule 65 petition.

XIX. If the Rule 65 Petition Was Dismissed by the Regional Trial Court

If a Rule 65 petition filed in the Regional Trial Court is dismissed, the petitioner may move for reconsideration before the RTC. If denied, the next remedy must be carefully determined. Depending on the nature of the case and applicable rules, review may be available before the Court of Appeals.

The petitioner should not automatically file another Rule 65 petition without examining whether appeal or petition for review is the proper mode.

XX. If the Rule 65 Petition Was Dismissed by the Court of Appeals

If the Court of Appeals dismisses a Rule 65 petition, the petitioner may file a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals.

If the Court of Appeals denies reconsideration, the usual further remedy is often a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising questions of law. The petitioner must be careful because Rule 45 is not another Rule 65 petition and generally does not review factual issues.

In exceptional cases, a Rule 65 petition may be considered if the Court of Appeals itself acted with grave abuse of discretion and no other adequate remedy exists, but this is not the ordinary path.

XXI. If the Rule 65 Petition Was Dismissed by the Supreme Court

If the Supreme Court dismisses a Rule 65 petition, the petitioner may file a motion for reconsideration if allowed and within the period. However, second motions for reconsideration are generally prohibited except under strict and extraordinary circumstances.

A denial with finality must be respected. Once entry of judgment is made, reopening is extremely difficult and allowed only under exceptional grounds.

XXII. If the Rule 65 Petition Was Dismissed by the Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, or Specialized Court

Special courts may have their own procedural rules. A motion for reconsideration must comply with those rules. The next remedy after denial may differ depending on statute, rules, and the nature of the case.

Counsel should check the special rules governing the tribunal involved.

XXIII. Rule 65 in Labor Cases

Rule 65 is often used in labor cases after decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission, voluntary arbitrators, or other labor tribunals. In many labor cases, parties file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to challenge an NLRC decision based on grave abuse of discretion.

If the Court of Appeals dismisses the Rule 65 petition, a motion for reconsideration may be filed. The motion must show that the CA overlooked the grave abuse committed by the labor tribunal, such as:

decision without substantial evidence;
disregard of due process;
misapplication of labor law amounting to grave abuse;
ruling contrary to undisputed evidence;
failure to consider material documents;
arbitrary reversal or affirmance;
jurisdictional error.

Mere disagreement with the NLRC’s factual findings is usually insufficient.

XXIV. Rule 65 in Criminal Cases

Rule 65 may be used in criminal procedure to challenge orders issued with grave abuse of discretion, such as certain interlocutory orders, denial of motions, or acts allegedly violating rights.

After dismissal of a Rule 65 petition in a criminal matter, the motion for reconsideration must account for special concerns:

double jeopardy;
speedy trial;
due process;
rights of the accused;
prosecutorial discretion;
availability of appeal;
finality of acquittals;
interlocutory nature of criminal orders;
public interest in prosecution.

The State and private complainant may have different rights and limitations.

XXV. Rule 65 in Election Cases

Election cases are governed by strict timelines. A motion for reconsideration after dismissal of a Rule 65 petition in an election-related matter must be filed with particular attention to special rules, short periods, and public interest in speedy resolution.

Courts are less tolerant of delay in election disputes. The motion must be concise, timely, and clearly grounded.

XXVI. Rule 65 in Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Cases

Rule 65 may challenge quasi-judicial acts of administrative agencies when no adequate appeal exists or when the agency acted with grave abuse.

If dismissed, the motion for reconsideration should clarify:

whether the agency acted quasi-judicially;
whether administrative remedies were exhausted;
whether appeal or review was available;
whether the agency exceeded jurisdiction;
whether due process was denied;
whether the agency ignored mandatory rules;
whether substantial evidence was absent.

Administrative law often requires exhaustion of remedies. If the petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust, the motion must explain why exhaustion was not required or why exceptions apply.

XXVII. Rule 65 and Interlocutory Orders

Many Rule 65 petitions challenge interlocutory orders, such as denial of a motion to dismiss, denial of a demurrer in civil cases, discovery orders, orders admitting evidence, or orders denying inhibition.

Courts generally discourage certiorari against interlocutory orders because errors can often be corrected on appeal after judgment. But certiorari may be allowed where the interlocutory order is issued with grave abuse and causes irreparable injury.

If the Rule 65 petition was dismissed on this ground, the motion for reconsideration should explain why waiting for appeal is inadequate.

XXVIII. Rule 65 and Temporary Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injunction

If the Rule 65 petition included a prayer for TRO or writ of preliminary injunction and the petition was dismissed, the provisional relief usually falls with the dismissal.

A motion for reconsideration may renew the request for provisional relief if:

the main petition should be reinstated;
there is a continuing act to restrain;
irreparable injury is imminent;
the petitioner has a clear and unmistakable right;
the balance of equities supports relief;
there is urgency.

The motion should clearly ask for reinstatement of provisional relief if needed.

XXIX. New Arguments in a Motion for Reconsideration

Generally, a motion for reconsideration should not raise arguments for the first time if they could have been raised in the petition. Courts may reject new theories because they are belated.

However, new matters may sometimes be considered if:

they respond directly to the grounds of dismissal;
they concern jurisdiction;
they involve supervening events;
they clarify an ambiguity;
they are necessary to prevent manifest injustice;
they involve controlling law overlooked;
they were not previously available despite diligence.

The motion should explain why the new point is being raised only at reconsideration.

XXX. New Evidence or Attachments

A motion for reconsideration may attach documents, especially when the dismissal was procedural or when documents were inadvertently omitted.

However, new evidence is not freely admitted. The petitioner should explain:

why the document is material;
why it was not attached earlier;
whether it was unavailable;
whether omission was excusable;
how it cures the defect;
why consideration is necessary in the interest of justice.

Courts are more receptive to documents that cure technical defects than documents that attempt to create a new theory.

XXXI. Substantial Justice and Relaxation of Rules

Petitioners often invoke substantial justice. This may help, but it is not a cure-all.

Courts may relax procedural rules in exceptional cases, considering:

importance of the issues;
merits of the petition;
absence of intent to delay;
excusable negligence;
lack of prejudice to the other party;
presence of compelling circumstances;
public interest;
risk of manifest injustice.

But substantial justice cannot be invoked casually. The motion must show both a procedural reason to excuse the defect and a meritorious substantive case.

A petition that is procedurally defective and substantively weak will not be saved by general appeals to equity.

XXXII. The Role of Counsel’s Negligence

If dismissal resulted from counsel’s mistake, the petitioner may argue excusable negligence only in limited circumstances. As a rule, a client is bound by counsel’s acts and omissions. Courts may relax the rule only when counsel’s negligence is so gross, reckless, or inexcusable that it deprives the client of due process, or where strict application would result in manifest injustice.

A motion should be careful in blaming counsel. It must show:

what happened;
why the mistake was excusable or extraordinary;
why the client should not be prejudiced;
prompt action after discovery;
merit of the underlying petition.

Ordinary carelessness is usually insufficient.

XXXIII. Verification and Certification in the Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration itself may not always require verification unless required by rule or circumstance, but if it includes factual assertions not appearing in the record, affidavits or supporting documents may be needed.

If the original petition was dismissed for defective verification or certification, the motion should attach corrected documents.

Corporate petitioners must ensure that the signatory has authority. Attachments may include:

secretary’s certificate;
board resolution;
special power of attorney;
partnership authorization;
proof of representative capacity.

XXXIV. Service and Filing

The motion must be filed with the court and served on all adverse parties.

Improper service may cause denial or delay. The motion should include proof of service, such as:

personal service acknowledgment;
registered mail receipt;
courier proof;
electronic service proof;
affidavit of service.

If electronic filing is required or allowed, counsel should comply with e-court or electronic filing rules.

XXXV. Style and Tone

A motion for reconsideration should be respectful, precise, and restrained.

Avoid language such as:

“The court clearly ignored the law.”
“The court was biased.”
“The resolution is absurd.”
“The court committed a grave injustice.”
“The court deliberately disregarded evidence.”

Use instead:

“With due respect, petitioner submits that the Court may have overlooked…”
“The dismissal appears to rest on the premise that…, but the record shows…”
“Petitioner respectfully submits that the remedy of appeal was not adequate because…”
“The omitted document is attached and respectfully submitted for the Court’s consideration.”

Respectful advocacy is more effective.

XXXVI. Sample Outline of a Motion for Reconsideration

A practical structure may be:

Caption
Title
Prefatory statement
Timeliness
Statement of the dismissal ruling
Grounds for reconsideration
Argument I: Petition was procedurally sufficient or defect has been cured
Argument II: Rule 65 was the proper remedy
Argument III: Respondent tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion
Argument IV: Substantial justice warrants reinstatement
Prayer
Notice/proof of service
Attachments

XXXVII. Sample Language: Timeliness

Petitioner received the Resolution dated [date] on [date]. This Motion is filed within the reglementary period. Accordingly, the Resolution has not attained finality.

XXXVIII. Sample Language: Procedural Defect Cured

The dismissal was based on the absence of [document]. Petitioner respectfully submits that the omission was inadvertent and not intended to mislead this Honorable Court. The missing document is attached as Annex “[x].” The complete record now before the Court sufficiently shows the grave abuse of discretion alleged in the Petition. Considering that the omission is curable, that no prejudice has been caused to respondents, and that the Petition raises substantial issues, petitioner respectfully prays that the dismissal be reconsidered.

XXXIX. Sample Language: No Adequate Appeal

The Petition did not seek correction of a mere error of judgment. The assailed Order was interlocutory and not appealable. Waiting for final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy because the Order immediately deprives petitioner of [right] and causes [irreparable consequence]. Certiorari was therefore proper to correct the respondent court’s grave abuse of discretion.

XL. Sample Language: Grave Abuse

With due respect, the respondent court’s act was not a mere error in appreciation. It disregarded a mandatory rule requiring [specific duty], despite the undisputed fact that [fact]. This resulted in a ruling that was arbitrary and issued in excess of jurisdiction. The assailed Order therefore falls within the corrective scope of Rule 65.

XLI. Sample Language: Prior Motion for Reconsideration Exception

Petitioner recognizes the general rule that a motion for reconsideration should first be filed before resort to certiorari. However, this case falls within recognized exceptions. The assailed Order is a patent nullity because [reason]. Moreover, the issue is purely legal and urgent, and a motion for reconsideration would not have afforded plain, speedy, and adequate relief because [reason]. Strict application of the rule would result in irreparable injury.

XLII. Sample Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner respectfully prays that the Resolution dated [date] be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE; that the Petition for Certiorari be REINSTATED and GIVEN DUE COURSE; and that respondents be required to file their Comment.

Petitioner further prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises.

XLIII. Multiple Motions for Reconsideration

A party should generally not file repeated motions for reconsideration. A second motion for reconsideration is usually prohibited or allowed only under exceptional circumstances and with leave of court, depending on the forum.

A prohibited second motion may be expunged, ignored, or treated as a delaying tactic. It may also lead to finality.

If a second motion is contemplated, counsel must identify an extraordinary basis, such as:

supervening events;
higher interest of justice;
clear and serious error;
exceptional circumstances recognized by rules;
leave of court, where required.

Routine repetition is improper.

XLIV. Finality of Judgment

Once the dismissal of the Rule 65 petition becomes final, the court generally loses jurisdiction to alter it, except for limited matters such as clerical corrections, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, or exceptional equitable remedies recognized by law.

The doctrine of finality is strict. It exists to end litigation and stabilize rights.

Therefore, the motion for reconsideration must be timely and complete.

XLV. Entry of Judgment

After denial of reconsideration and lapse of the period for further review, entry of judgment may be made. Once entry is made, reopening becomes extremely difficult.

A party should monitor:

date of receipt of denial;
period for further review;
whether judgment has been entered;
whether any stay order exists;
whether execution or remand will follow.

XLVI. Can the Petitioner File a New Rule 65 Petition After Dismissal?

Usually, filing a new Rule 65 petition raising the same issues is improper and may be dismissed for forum shopping, res judicata, or violation of finality.

A new petition may be considered only if it challenges a different act, a supervening event, or the reviewing court’s own grave abuse under extraordinary circumstances. Even then, it is risky.

The proper remedy after dismissal is normally reconsideration, then the appropriate review remedy, not repeated Rule 65 petitions.

XLVII. Relation to Rule 45

After the Court of Appeals dismisses a Rule 65 petition and denies reconsideration, a party often considers filing a petition under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

Rule 45 raises questions of law. It does not generally allow reexamination of facts. The petitioner must frame legal issues such as:

whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of grave abuse;
whether it erred in affirming a jurisdictional act;
whether it properly dismissed on procedural grounds;
whether it correctly ruled that appeal was adequate;
whether it properly applied exceptions.

A Rule 45 petition should not simply refile the Rule 65 arguments.

XLVIII. Motion for Reconsideration and Temporary Relief

If the petitioner needs urgent relief after dismissal, the motion should include a renewed prayer for temporary relief only if legally and factually justified.

The motion may ask for:

status quo ante order;
temporary restraining order;
preliminary injunction;
suspension of proceedings below;
order preventing execution;
order preserving the subject matter.

The motion must explain urgency. A dismissed petition generally means there is no pending main action unless the court reinstates or grants interim protection.

XLIX. Practical Strategic Questions Before Filing

Before filing, counsel should ask:

Why exactly was the petition dismissed?
Is the dismissal procedural or substantive?
Can the defect be cured?
Was the petition timely?
Was Rule 65 truly the proper remedy?
Was prior reconsideration required and done?
Is there a credible grave abuse argument?
Are there missing documents?
Are there related cases requiring disclosure?
What further remedy will be available if denied?
Will the motion interrupt finality?
Is there urgent harm requiring provisional relief?
Should a settlement or alternative remedy be pursued?
Is the motion merely repetitive?
Can the argument be made respectfully and persuasively?

A weak motion may waste the remaining period and worsen the case.

L. Common Mistakes in Motions for Reconsideration

Common mistakes include:

filing late;
filing a pro forma motion;
ignoring the dismissal ground;
repeating the petition verbatim;
failing to attach missing documents;
failing to correct defective certification;
raising irrelevant facts;
arguing ordinary error instead of grave abuse;
insisting that appeal is inconvenient rather than inadequate;
failing to explain lack of prior motion for reconsideration;
omitting proof of service;
failing to disclose related proceedings;
using disrespectful language;
filing a second motion without leave;
missing the next remedy after denial.

LI. Best Practices

A strong motion for reconsideration should:

be timely filed;
begin with a concise explanation of what the court overlooked;
directly address the dismissal ruling;
separate procedural and substantive arguments;
attach curative documents;
cite the exact pages and annexes of the record;
show grave abuse, not mere error;
explain why Rule 65 was proper;
demonstrate absence of adequate appeal;
avoid new issues unless justified;
be respectful in tone;
include a precise prayer;
preserve issues for further review;
comply with filing and service rules;
avoid unnecessary length while being complete.

LII. Special Concern: Preserving Issues for Supreme Court Review

If further review may be needed, the motion for reconsideration should preserve the key issues. A point not raised in the motion may later be treated as waived, depending on the circumstances.

The motion should identify:

procedural error in dismissal;
substantive grave abuse;
due process concerns;
legal questions;
controlling rules or jurisprudence;
substantial justice grounds;
exceptional circumstances.

However, preservation should not turn the motion into a bloated pleading. The focus remains reconsideration.

LIII. The Court’s Possible Actions on the Motion

After receiving the motion, the court may:

deny it outright;
require comment from respondents;
grant the motion and reinstate the petition;
modify the dismissal;
clarify the ruling;
grant partial relief;
require submission of additional documents;
set the matter for hearing;
grant provisional relief;
issue a new resolution on the merits.

If respondents are required to comment, the petitioner may be allowed or required to reply, depending on the court’s order.

LIV. Reinstatement of the Petition

If reconsideration is granted, the court may reinstate the Rule 65 petition. Reinstatement does not necessarily mean the petition is granted. It may only mean the petition will be considered, respondents will comment, or the case will proceed.

The petitioner should continue to comply with court orders promptly.

LV. Partial Reconsideration

Sometimes the court may deny reinstatement but modify language, clarify that dismissal is without prejudice, or correct certain findings. This may affect further remedies.

For example, a dismissal without prejudice may allow refiling in the proper forum if the period and rules permit. A dismissal with prejudice may bar further litigation.

LVI. Dismissal Without Prejudice Versus With Prejudice

A dismissal without prejudice means the case may possibly be refiled or pursued through the correct remedy, subject to periods and other rules. A dismissal with prejudice is more severe and may bar relitigation.

A motion for reconsideration may ask the court, at minimum, to clarify or modify the dismissal as without prejudice if reinstatement is not granted.

LVII. Costs and Sanctions

Rule 65 petitions and motions for reconsideration may be penalized if frivolous, dilatory, or abusive. Courts may impose costs, dismiss with warning, or refer counsel for disciplinary action in extreme cases.

A motion for reconsideration should be filed in good faith and based on arguable legal grounds.

LVIII. Ethical Considerations

Counsel should not file a motion for reconsideration solely to delay finality. Counsel should be candid about facts, adverse rulings, and procedural defects. Misrepresentation can harm the client and expose counsel to sanctions.

Ethical advocacy allows forceful argument, but not distortion.

LIX. Practical Examples

Example 1: Dismissal for missing annex

A petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to attach the assailed order. The motion for reconsideration attaches a certified true copy, explains inadvertence, and shows that the petition was timely and meritorious. Reconsideration may be possible.

Example 2: Dismissal for lack of prior motion for reconsideration

A petitioner filed certiorari immediately after an order freezing assets, claiming urgent irreparable injury. The court dismissed for failure to file prior MR. The motion for reconsideration must show urgency and why prior MR would not be adequate.

Example 3: Dismissal because appeal was available

A petitioner challenges a final judgment through Rule 65 instead of appeal. The motion argues appeal was slower. This is weak. Mere slowness of appeal is generally insufficient.

Example 4: Dismissal for no grave abuse

A labor petition argues that the NLRC misappreciated evidence. The court dismisses. The motion must show more than factual disagreement; it must show absence of substantial evidence or arbitrary disregard of undisputed facts.

Example 5: Dismissal for forum shopping

A petitioner failed to disclose a related civil case involving the same parties and relief. The motion must candidly explain the omission and show no identity of causes or reliefs. This is difficult if concealment appears deliberate.

LX. Drafting Checklist

Before filing, verify:

date of receipt of dismissal;
deadline;
correct court and docket number;
correct title and parties;
specific dismissal grounds;
precise relief requested;
corrected annexes;
certified true copies, where required;
updated verification or certification, if needed;
authority of signatory;
proof of service;
page references to record;
respectful tone;
no prohibited second motion issue;
plan for next remedy if denied.

LXI. Sample Skeleton Motion

[Caption]

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Petitioner, through counsel, respectfully states:

Petitioner received the Resolution dated [date] on [date]. This Motion is timely filed.
The Resolution dismissed the Petition on the ground that [state ground].
With due respect, reconsideration is warranted because [summary of grounds].

I. The Petition was timely filed.

[Argument and dates.]

II. Certiorari was the proper remedy because appeal was not plain, speedy, and adequate.

[Argument.]

III. The respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion.

[Argument.]

IV. The procedural defect, if any, has been cured and should not defeat substantial justice.

[Argument and annexes.]

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that the Resolution dated [date] be reconsidered and set aside, and that the Petition be reinstated and given due course.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

[Signature and service details]

LXII. Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a motion for reconsideration be filed after dismissal of a Rule 65 petition?

Yes, generally. It must be timely, proper, and substantial.

2. How many days does the petitioner have?

The period depends on the court and applicable rules, but the common practical period is often 15 days from notice unless a different period applies. The dismissal resolution and governing rules must be checked immediately.

3. Does filing a motion for reconsideration automatically stop finality?

A timely and proper motion generally affects finality. A late or pro forma motion may not.

4. Can the motion simply repeat the petition?

No. It should address the specific reasons for dismissal and show what the court overlooked or why the defect should be cured.

5. Can missing documents be attached for the first time?

Sometimes, especially if the omission was inadvertent and curable. The motion should explain why the documents were omitted and why they are material.

6. What if the petition was dismissed because no prior MR was filed before the lower tribunal?

The motion must show that a recognized exception applies or that a prior MR was actually filed.

7. What if the petition was dismissed because appeal was available?

The motion must show that appeal was not plain, speedy, or adequate, or that the challenged act involved grave abuse beyond ordinary appealable error.

8. What happens if the motion is denied?

The petitioner must determine the correct further remedy, such as a petition for review under Rule 45 where available, or other remedy depending on the court and case.

9. Can a second motion for reconsideration be filed?

Generally, no, except under strict and exceptional circumstances and, where required, with leave of court.

10. Is Rule 65 a substitute for a lost appeal?

No. Rule 65 cannot generally be used to revive a lost appeal. It is limited to jurisdictional errors and grave abuse of discretion.

LXIII. Key Takeaways

A motion for reconsideration after dismissal of a Rule 65 petition must do more than express disagreement. It must confront the exact basis of dismissal.

If the petition was dismissed for a procedural defect, the motion should cure the defect and explain why dismissal is too harsh. If dismissed on the merits, the motion should show that the court overlooked grave abuse of discretion, not merely ordinary error. If dismissed for wrong remedy, the motion should prove that appeal or ordinary remedies were not plain, speedy, or adequate.

The motion must be timely, specific, properly served, supported by the record, and respectful. It should preserve the petitioner’s rights without becoming repetitive or pro forma.

LXIV. Conclusion

A motion for reconsideration after dismissal of a Rule 65 petition is a vital procedural remedy in Philippine litigation. It gives the petitioner one opportunity to ask the same court to revisit its ruling before finality sets in or before further review becomes necessary.

Its success depends on precision. The petitioner must identify why the dismissal was legally or factually mistaken, cure any curable procedural defect, and demonstrate that the original petition properly invoked the extraordinary corrective power of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus.

Because Rule 65 is not an appeal, the motion must be anchored on jurisdictional error, grave abuse of discretion, absence of adequate ordinary remedy, or compelling reasons for relaxation of procedural rules. A motion that merely repeats old arguments is likely to fail. A motion that directly addresses the dismissal, supports its points with the record, and shows manifest legal error or substantial injustice has a better chance.

In the Philippine context, the governing principle is clear: courts may relax rules to prevent injustice, but the extraordinary remedy of Rule 65 remains narrow. A motion for reconsideration after dismissal must therefore show not only that the petitioner lost, but that the dismissal overlooked a legally significant reason why the Rule 65 petition deserved to be heard.