Before petitioner's motion to dismiss could be resolved, private respondent filed with the RTC on 18 August 1993 an amended complaint for damages.On 14 September 1993 it also filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for the Grant of a Preliminary Prohibitory and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. On the very same day, Judge Santiago issued an order (a) denyingpetitioner's motion to dismiss, (b) admitting private respondent's amended complaint, and (c) grantingprivate respondent's application for a temporary restraining order against petitioner. Thus, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorariand prohibition on the groundthat Judge Santiago acted in excess of his jurisdiction and/or committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in admitting the amended complaint of private
respondent and issuing a restraining order against petitioner; in allowing private respondent toengage in forum shopping; and, taking cognizance of the action for damages despite lack of jurisdiction.But theCourt of Appeals dismissed the petition due to the failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge Santiago's orderof 14 September 1993 which, it explained, was a prerequisite to the institution of a petition forcertiorariand prohibition.It also found that the elements oflitis pendenciawere lacking to justify the dismissal of the action for damages with the RTC because despite the pendency of the forcible entry case with the MeTC the only damages recoverable thereat were those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the propertyandnotthekind of damages being claimed before the RTC which had no direct relation to loss ofmaterial possession.It clarified that since the damages prayed for in the amended complaint with the RTC were those caused by the alleged high-handed manner with which petitioner reacquiredpossession of the leased premises and the sale of private respondents movables found therein, the RTC and not the MeTC had jurisdiction over the action of damages.Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.Issue : W/N CA erred in(a) finding that petitioner failed to avail of its plain, speedy and adequate remedy of a prior motion for reconsideration with the RTC; (b) ruling that the trial judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the action for damages and injunction despite the pendency of the forcible entry case with the MeTC; and, (c) ruling that private respondent did notcommit forum shopping since the causes of action before the RTC and MeTC were not identical with each other.Held: There is merit in the petition. While generally a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to certiorariin order to give the lower court an opportunity to correct the errors imputed to itthis rule admits of exceptions and is not intended to be applied without considering the circumstances of the case.