[a]ny motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc except motions on interlocutory orders of the division which shall be resolved by the division which issued the order this Court ruled that the authority to resolve such incidental matters fell on the division itself. The Court went on to say that: where the Commission in division committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing interlocutory orders relative to an action pending before it and the controversy did not fall under any of the instances mentioned in Section 2, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure [which enumerates the cases in which the Comelec may sit en banc],13 the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to refer the controversy to the Commission en banc as this is not permissible under its present rules but to elevate it to this Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.14 In fine, Kho tells us that an interlocutory order of a Comelec division should be challenged at the first instance through a proper motion, such as a motion for reconsideration, filed with the division that rendered the order. If that fails and no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy (such as recourse to the Comelec en banc) is available, the party aggrieved by the interlocutory order may elevate the matter to the Supreme Court by means of a petition for certiorari on the ground that the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Private respondent asserts, however, that Kho has been superseded by the more recent case of Repol v. Commission on Elections15 from which he cites the dictum that: [t]he Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the COMELEC. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the action.16 Again, we disagree. There is no contradiction between Kho and Repol that calls for the application of the doctrine that a later judgment supersedes a prior one in case of inconsistency. In Repol, the petitioner went directly to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the Comelec First Division without first filing a motion for reconsideration with said division. That was properly a cause for concern inasmuch as failure to move for reconsideration of the act or order before challenging it through a petition for certiorari often constitutes a ground for dismissal for non-compliance with the condition in Rule 65: that resort to certiorari should be justified by the unavailability of an appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the end, however, the Court in Repol applied the ruling in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC17 that an exception to the procedural requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration was warranted since there was hardly enough time to move for reconsideration and obtain a swift resolution in time for the impending elections. A sensible reading of our decision shows that Repol was not a negation or repudiation of this Court’s jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari from interlocutory orders rendered by a Comelec division. Had it been so, then we would have dismissed the petition on the ground that it was beyond our jurisdiction. Rather, this Court in Repolmerely applied the rule that a petition for certiorari must be justified by the absence of a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; we said that the rule had been satisfied inasmuch as a motion for reconsideration was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy under the circumstances.