SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., et al. v. BABY NELLIE M. OLAIREZ, et al.

G.R. No. 162299, 26 March 2014, THIRD DIVISION (Mendoza, J.)

A liberality in the application of the rules of procedure may not be invoked if it will result in
the wanton disregard of the rules or cause needless delay in the administration of justice. For it is
equally settled that, except for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance is enjoined to
facilitate the orderly administration of justice.

On March 18, 2002, Baby Nellie Olairez (Olairez) and a group of graduating students from
Saint Louis University (SLU)’s College of Medicine batch 2001 filed their Complaint for Mandatory
Injunction with Damages and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order before the
Regional Trial Court against Dean Elizabeth Dacanay, and certain unidentified individuals working
under SLU, referred to as “John Does”, challenging the implementation of the revised version of
Comprehensive Oral and Written Examination (COWE) as a prerequisite for graduation from SLU’s
medicine course. The revised COWE was allegedly contrary to SLU’s handbook and would
arbitrarily delay their graduation.

Olairez submitted her graduation application (with waiver) on April 3, 2002 and was
allowed to attend the graduation rites; thereafter, RTC granted the writ of Preliminary Injunction
preventing SLU and Dean Dacanay from enforcing the revised COWE. Subsequently, Olairez and
company obtained clearances from various departments except for two, with Dean Dacanay
refusing to issue certification in their favor which led to Olairez’s petition praying for the release of
certificates, clearances, diploma, and to declare the COWE as moot and academic insofar as they
were concerned. RTC held that COWE was indeed moot and academic on the ground that SLU had
already allowed the group to attend the graduation rites, and the Commission on Higher Education
had already issued a certification that the Olairez group had completed all requirements
notwithstanding grant of autonomy.

On July 21, 2003, SLU moved for the inhibition of Presiding Judge Ayson, but its motion was
denied in the Order. Thereafter, the hearing of the motion to cite SLU in contempt proceeded on the
same day without any participation of SLU and its officials. On the next day, the RTC found SLU
guilty of indirect contempt.

Thereafter, SLU filed a petition for certiorari, but was denied by the CA, and then moved for
reconsideration, but was denied again. Unsatisfied, SLU appealed the order of the RTC finding it
guilty of indirect contempt before the CA, and its instant appeal was then granted. Unperturbed, the
Olairez group moved for reconsideration, but was denied. Thus, Olairez group filed a petition
review on certiorari. In resolution, the court resolved to consolidate the two cases.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not SLU may file a petition for certiorari without a prior motion for
reconsideration.

2. Whether or not CA erred in ruling that SLU was denied of due process of law as they were
not given the opportunity to comment and be heard on the contempt charges against them.
RULING:

1. NO. The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the
filing of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to
correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and
factual circumstances of the case. It is not, however, an ironclad rule. There are recognized
exceptions. Under the circumstances, SLU’s explanation constitutes no sufficient ground for
the application of the exception to the rule, and in the same, petitioners may not arrogate to
themselves the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not.
For it is equally settled that, except for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance is
enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice

2. NO. The supposed inaction of the SLU and its officials was not borne out of a contumacious
conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to hinder the implementation of a judgment. A
conduct, to be contumacious, implies willfulness, bad faith or with deliberate intent to cause
injustice, which is clearly not the case here. On the contrary, SLU was well within its rights
to appeal the decision and not immediately heed the demand of the Olairez group. The
power to declare a person in contempt of court and in dealing with him accordingly is an
inherent power lodged in courts of justice, It should not be availed of unless necessary in
the interest of justice.