Certiorari; Period to file. MALLARI, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM G.R. No. 15 !

5" #a$%ar& '5, '(1( )ERSAMIN, J.: *ACTS+ In 1968, the petitioner obtained two loans totaling P34,000.00 from respondent G I . !o se"#re the performan"e, he mortgaged two par"els of land registered #nder his and his wife $ar"elina $allari%s names. &owever, he paid G I abo#t ten 'ears after "ontra"ting the obligations onl' P10,000.00 and P(0,000.00 Nearl& t,ree &ear- later .1"/01, GSIS a22lied for t,e e3tra4%di5ial fore5lo-%re of t,e 6ort7a7e 8& rea-o$ of ,ifail%re to -ettle ,i- a55o%$t. &e re)#ested an #pdated "omp#tation of his o#tstanding a""o#nt. &e pers#aded the sheriff to hold the p#bli"ation of the fore"los#re to await a"tion on his pending re)#est for final a""o#nting *that is, ta9i$7 ,i- 2a&6e$t- of P:(,(((.(( 6ade i$ 1" / i$to a55o%$t1. G I responded to his re)#est. It finall' "ommen"ed e+tra,#di"ial fore"los#re pro"eedings against him be"a#se he had meanwhile made no f#rther pa'ments. !he petitioner s#ed G I *prelim in,#n"tion-. !he .!/ de"ided in his favor, n#llif'ing the e+tra,#di"ial fore"los#re and a#"tion sale. G I appealed to the /0, whi"h reversed the .!/. Petitio$er ele;ated t,e CA de5i-io$ to t,i- Co%rt ;ia 2etitio$ for re;ie< o$ 5ertiorari !his /o#rt denied his petition for review and motion for re"onsideration. 0s a res#lt, the /0 de"ision be"ame final and e+e"#tor', re$deri$7 %$a--aila8le 8ot, t,e e3tra4%di5ial fore5lo-%re a$d a%5tio$ -ale. 1e"a#se of the petitioner%s re)#est for an e+tension of time to va"ate the properties, G I a""eded to the re)#est. 2et, the petitioner did not vol#ntaril' va"ate the properties, b#t instead filed a $. and3or to )#ash the writ of e+e"#tion and motion to hold G I in "ontempt of "o#rt for painting the fen"e of the properties d#ring the penden"' of his said motion. !o prevent the Presiding 4#dge of 1ran"h 44 of the .!/ from resolving the pending in"idents, G I moved to inhibit him for alleged partialit' towards the petitioner as borne o#t b' his fail#re to a"t on the motion for reconsideration and/or to quash writ of execution for more than a 'ear from their filing, pra'ing that the "ase be re5raffled to another bran"h of the .!/. !he petitioner so#ght re"onsideration b#t the Presiding 4#dge of 1ran"h 48 on 6ebr#ar' 11, (00( denied his motion for re"onsideration. 1' petition for "ertiorari dated $ar"h 17, (00( filed in the /0, the petitioner assailed the orders of 6ebr#ar' 11, (00(, 4#l' 30, (001 *denied $otion for /ontempt-, 8"tober (1, 1999 *Granted 9rit of e+e"#tion "#m writ of possession-, and 8"tober 8, 1999. !he /0 dismissed the petition for "ertiorari for la": of merit. &en"e, this appeal. I--%e+ 9hether or not the Petition for /ertiorari in /0 9as 6iled 1e'ond .eglementar' Period =EL>+ YES. /onsidering that the motion for reconsideration dated 0#g#st 1;, (001 denied b' the order dated 6ebr#ar' 11, (00( was in realit' and effe"t a prohibited se"ond motion for reconsideration vis--vis the orders dated 8"tober (1, 1999 and 8"tober 8, 1999, the assailed orders dated 4#l' 30, (001, 8"tober (1, 1999, and 8"tober 8, 1999 "o#ld no longer be s#b,e"t to atta": b' certiorari. !h#s, the petition for certiorari filed onl' in $ar"h (00( was alread' improper and tard' for being made be'ond the 605da' limitation defined in Se5tio$ 0, R%le !5, 1"" Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, whi"h re)#ires a petition for certiorari to be filed <not later than si+t' *60- da's from noti"e of the ,#dgment, order or resol#tion,= or, in "ase a motion for re"onsideration or new trial is timel' filed, whether s#"h motion is re)#ired or not, <the si+t' *60- da' period shall be "o#nted from noti"e of the denial of the said motion.= It is worth emphasi>ing that the 605da' limitation is "onsidered ine+tendible, be"a#se the limitation has been pres"ribed to avoid an' #nreasonable dela' that violates the "onstit#tional rights of parties to a speed' disposition of their "ases.

9&?.?68.?, we den' the petition for review on "ertiorari for la": of merit.

GON?ALES vs. COURT O* APPEALS .Tole$ti$o1 A.M. No. CA@1(@0"@#; #a$%ar& '/, '(1( CARPIO MORALES, J.: *ACTS+ Gon>ales *"omplainant-, then a member of 0labang /o#ntr' /l#b, In"orporated *0//I- who was v'ing for a seat in its 1oard of @ire"tors, was "harged b' the 1oard with ,a;i$7 fal-ified 2ro3& for6- for t,e '((0 ele5tio$ of )oard 6e68er-. !hat drew him to file a "omplaint before the .!/, $#ntinl#pa /it', for damages against 0//I. /omplainant was later dis)#alified as a "andidate and o#sted as a member of the 0//I. &e th#s amended his "omplaint in the "ivil "ase b' impleading the members of the 1oard and he added, as "a#se of a"tion, the n#llifi"ation of his dis)#alifi"ation and e+p#lsion. .!/ de"ided in 5o62lai$a$tA- fa;or, a$d i--%ed a <rit of e3e5%tio$ allo<i$7 ,i6 to re-%6e ,i- ri7,t- a- a 6e68er of ACCI. defe$da$t- a--ailed t,e trial 5o%rtA- de5i-io$ 8efore t,e Co%rt of A22eal- ;ia 2etitio$ for re;ie< <it, a22li5atio$ for te62orar& re-trai$i$7 order .TRO1 a$dBor <rit of 2reli6i$ar& i$4%$5tio$. a22ellate 5o%rt i--%ed TRO against the e+e"#tion of the de"ision in the "ivil "ase, drawing "omplainant to move for its lifting, alleging that 0//I had alread' vol#ntaril' e+e"#ted the de"ision in the "ivil "ase. &is motion was denied. C,e$ t,e TRO e32ired, the Ainth @ivision of the /0 *1arrios, Beloso, and !olentino as ponente dire"ted the i--%a$5e of a Crit of Preli6i$ar& I$4%$5tio$ /omplainant "hallenged the appellate "o#rt%s iss#an"e of the writ of preliminar' in,#n"tion via 2etitio$ for 5ertiorari filed before this /o#rt on eptember 8, (007.3 "omplainant filed on eptember (9, (007 before the appellate "o#rt a $otion for Inhibition of respondent be"a#se, b' his "laim, the iss#an"e of the writ was against the law. 1' .esol#tion of 0pril 11, (00;, the /o#rt di-6i--ed "omplainant%s petition for "ertiorari 4 Cfor fail%re to -%ffi5ie$tl& -,o< that the )#estioned Dappellate "o#rt%sE .esol#tion is tai$ted <it, 7ra;e a8%-e of di-5retio$.C $ore than a 'ear later or on 0#g#st (0, (008, "omplainant filed a letter5"omplaint before this /o#rt

ISSUE+

CBN t,e dela& i$ re-ol;i$7 t,e Motio$ for I$,i8itio$ i- PROPER i$ ;ie< of 5o62lai$a$tA- fili$7 .Se2t /, (51 of t,e Petitio$ for Certiorari. =EL>+ NO. !&?.? I FA@F? @?G02. !he r#le that a petition for "ertiorari does not IA!?..FP! the "o#rse of the prin"ipal "ase FAG? a !.8 or 9rit of Preliminar' In,#n"tion has been iss#ed against the p#bli" respondent from f#rther pro"eeding with the "ase m#st be stri"tl' adhered to b' appellate and lower "o#rts A8!9I!& !0A@IAG the possibilit' that the pro"eedings #nderta:en b' them tend or wo#ld render AFG0!8.2 the pending petition before the /. .espondent%s ,#stifi"ation for the dela' in resolving the motion for inhibition H in deferen"e to the a#thorit' of this /o#rt to resolve the iss#es raised in the petition for "ertiorari H does not impress. e"tion ; of .#le 67 of the .#les of /o#rt provides that a petition for "ertiorari shall not interr#pt the "o#rse of the prin"ipal "ase #nless a temporar' restraining order or a writ of preliminar' in,#n"tion has been iss#ed against the p#bli" respondent from f#rther pro"eeding with the "ase. !his r#le m#st be stri"tl' adhered to b' appellate and lower "o#rts notwithstanding the possibilit' that the pro"eedings #nderta:en b' them tend to or wo#ld render n#gator' the pending petition before this /o#rt. 17 1#t even grat#ito#sl' "rediting respondent%s ,#stifi"ation for the dela', sin"e the /o#rt resolved "omplainant%s petition for "ertiorari on 0pril 11, '(( , still, given the nat#re and histor' of the "ases, respondent #nd#l' dela'ed the resol#tion of a mere motion for inhibition H onl' on 8"tober 8, '((/, after the /o#rt referred the present "omplaint to the appellate "o#rt and after "omplainant filed a reiterative motion. C=ERE*ORE, respondent is fo#nd GFIG!2 of #nd#e dela' in rendering an order.

PINE>A ;-. COURT O* APPEALS G.R. No. 1/1!0:; No;e68er 1 , '(1( MEN>O?A, J.: *ACTS+

!his is a 2etitio$ for certiorari %$der R%le !5 filed b' petitioner see:ing to ann#l and set aside @e"ision of the CA, whi"h reversed 8rder of .!/, Pasig /it' dire"ting the iss#an"e of a 9rit of Preliminar' $andator' In,#n"tion en,oining respondent DepEd from enfor"ing its de"ision to "an"el a 75'ear lease of the s"hool "anteen. Pineda entered into a Me6ora$d%6 of A7ree6e$t (May-MOA) .'((01 <it, La9a$d%la =i7, S5,ool (LHS) represented b' its prin"ipal Dr. !"as#, for a fi;e@&ear lea-e of t,e -5,ool 5a$tee$ <it, a 6o$t,l& re$tal of P'(,(((.(( a$d a$ additio$al P0,(((.(( 6o$t,l& for t,e -5,oolA- feedi$7 2ro7ra6 as well as medi"ines for the s"hool "lini". !hereafter, Pineda re$o;ated t,e 5a$tee$ a$d eD%i22ed it with new #tensils, tables, "hairs, and ele"tri" fans. !he fa"#lt' and personnel of G& sent a letter to the @ivision "hool #perintendent Dr. $ui%ones#, D%e-tio$i$7 t,e ;alidit& of t,e Ma&@MOA. Pineda and @r. 1las e+e"#ted a$ot,er MOA (August-MOA) -%2er-edi$7 t,e Ma&@MOA. !his time, the A%7%-t@ MOA follo<ed t,e -ta$dard for6 %$der >e2art6e$t Order No. "5 , eries of 1998; or the C.evised Implementing G#idelines for the !#rnover of "hool /anteens to !ea"hers /ooperatives.C $s. antos and $r. $a"ar#bbo were of the view that @r. 1las did not violate an' r#le in e+e"#ting the 0#g#st5$80 and the lease to Pineda benefi"ial to the s"hool. !h#s, @r. I#iJones wrote the @ep?d see:ing its de"ision on the matter. .espondent @ep?d, de5lared t,e A%7%-t@MOA E ull a d void a! i itio E a$d ordered it E5a$5elled.C Pineda was also ordered to C"ease and desistC from f#rther managing and operating the "anteen. @ep?d made "lear that the management and operation of the "anteen sho#ld revert to the &ome ?"onomi"s @epartment of the "hool. !his prompted Pi$eda to file a 2etitio$ for 5ertiorari <it, 2ra&er for te62orar& re-trai$i$7 order .TRO1 a$dBor <rit of 2reli6i$ar& i$4%$5tio$ 8efore t,e RTC. .!/ ordered the iss#an"e of a 9rit of Preliminar' $andator' In,#n"tion en,oining the enfor"ement of @ep?d de"ision @ep?d and $s. /amilo so#ght the dismissal of Pineda%s petition 5 failed to state a "a#se of a"tion K denied >e2Ed filed a 2etitio$ for 5ertiorari 8efore t,e CA -ee9i$7 to -et a-ide order- of t,e RTC. !he /0 affir6ed order of t,e RTC de$&i$7 >e2EdA- 6otio$ to di-6i-- 8%t re;er-ed order 7ra$ti$7 t,e i--%a$5e of t,e Crit of Preli6i$ar& Ma$dator& I$4%$5tio$ .

ISSUE+ CBN T=E PETITION *OR REVIEC ON CERTIORARI IS PROPER >ESPITE >e2EdA- fail%re to 6o;e for re5o$-ideratio$ 8efore 7oi$7 to t,e CA o$ 5ertiorari. =EL>L

!he 7e$eral r%le is that a motion for re"onsideration is a "ondition sine )#a non before a petition for "ertiorari ma' lie, its p#rpose being to grant an opport#nit' for the "o#rt a )#o to "orre"t an' error attrib#ted to it b' a re5 e+amination of the legal and fa"t#al "ir"#mstan"es of the "ase. 16 !here are, however, re5o7$iFed e35e2tio$2er6itti$7 a re-ort to t,e -2e5ial 5i;il a5tio$ for 5ertiorari <it,o%t fir-t fili$7 a 6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$.

In the "ase of "o#do# v. Sa diga !aya ,1; it was writtenL !he r#le is, however, "ir"#ms"ribed b' well5defined e+"eptions, s#"h as 1. where the order is a 2ate$t $%llit& 8e5a%-e t,e 5o%rt a D%o ,ad $o 4%ri-di5tio$ M (. where the )#estions raised in the "ertiorari pro"eeding have been d#l' raised and passed #pon b' the lower "o#rt, or are the same as those raised and passed #pon in the lower 3. <,ere t,ere i- a$ %r7e$t $e5e--it& for t,e re-ol%tio$ of t,e D%e-tio$, a$d a$& f%rt,er dela& <o%ld 2re4%di5e t,e i$tere-t- of t,e Go;er$6e$t or of t,e 2etitio$er, or t,e -%84e5t 6atter of t,e a5tio$ i- 2eri-,a8le; 4. where, #nder the "ir"#mstan"es, a 6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$ <o%ld 8e %-ele--M 7. where the 2etitio$er <a- de2ri;ed of d%e 2ro5e-- and there is e+treme #rgen"' for reliefM 6. where, in a "riminal "ase, relief from an order of arrest is #rgent and the grant of s#"h relief b' the trial "o#rt is improbableM where the pro"eedings in the lower "o#rt are a n#llit' for la": of d#e pro"essM where the pro"eedings were e+ parte or in whi"h the petitioner had no opport#nit' to ob,e"tM and where the iss#e raised is one p#rel' of law or where p#bli" interest is involved.18 *#nders"oring s#pplied0s previo#sl' dis"#ssed, the present "ase "on"erns the i62le6e$tatio$ or a22li5atio$ of a >e2Ed 2oli5& <,i5, ,ad 8ee$ e$4oi$ed 8& t,e RTC . /ertainl', t,ere i- a$ %r7e$t $e5e--it& for t,e re-ol%tio$ of t,e D%e-tio$ a$d a$& f%rt,er dela& <o%ld 2re4%di5e t,e i$tere-t of t,e 7o;er$6e$t. $oreover, the s#b,e"t matter of the "ase involves the operation of the "anteen of a p#bli" se"ondar' s"hool. !his is of p#bli" interest for it affe"ts the welfare of the st#dents, th#s, 4%-tif&i$7 t,e rela3atio$ of t,e -ettled r%le.

MAN>AMUS CASE UNIVERSITY O* T=E P=ILIPPINES )OAR> O* REGENTS vs. =ON. LIGOT@TELAN G.R. No. 11('/( O5to8er 1', 1"": ROMERO, J.: *ACTS+ F.P. 1oard of .egents iss#ed a Re-ol%tio$ e-ta8li-,i$7 t,e ST*AP .So5ialiFed T%itio$ *ee a$d A--i-ta$5e Pro7ra61. 0 'ear later, it was granted offi"ial re"ognition when the Co$7re-- allo5ated a 2ortio$ of t,e Natio$al )%d7et for the implementation of the program. all -t%de$t- are e$titled to a22l& for ST*AP 8e$efit- . 0ppli"ants are re)#ired to a""omplish a )#estionnaire and at the end the appli"ation form, the st#dent appli"ant, as well as his parent, signs a sworn statement 5 U$i;er-it& 6a& -e$d a fa5t@fi$di$7 tea6 to ;i-it 6& ,o6eBre-ide$5e to ;erif& t,e ;era5it& of t,e i$for6atio$ 0mong those who applied for !60P benefits for S5,ool Year 1"/"@"( <a- Ra6o$ P. Nadal, a -t%de$t e$rolled i$ t,e Colle7e of La<. 0 team "ond#"ted a ,o6e i$;e-ti7atio$ at the residen"e of Aadal in I#e>on /it'. M-. Cri-teta, NadalG- a%$t, <a- i$ter;ie<ed and the team s#bmitted a home visit report. /onsola"ion, "holarship 0ffairs 8ffi"er II, fo%$d di-5re2a$5ie- 8et<ee$ t,e re2ort a$d NadalG- a22li5atio$ for6 . Billan#eva *head of the offi"e of s"holarship- wrote Aadal informing him that he had failed to de5lare, not onl' the fa"t that he had a 1" Corolla 5ar <,i5, <a- o<$ed 8& ,i- 8rot,er b#t also the in"ome of his mother who was s#pporting his brothers. &e re5la--ified ,i6 to )ra59et " .fro6 )ra59et 0 -, retroa"tive to 4#ne 1989, #nless he "o#ld s#bmit Cproofs to the "ontrar'.C Nadal <a- reD%ired Eto 2a& 8a59 t,e eD%i;ale$t a6o%$t of f%ll -5,ool fee- C. 1e"a#se of the di-5re2a$5ie- 8et<ee$ NadalG- a22li5atio$ for6 a$d t,e 5ertifi5atio$ , the F.P. "harged Aadal before the t#dent @is"iplinar' !rib#nal * @!- that he willf#ll' withheld and did not de"lare a "ar and the in"ome of his mother whi"h a"ts of willf#ll' withholding information is tantamo#nt to a5t- of di-,o$e-t& i$ relatio$ to

,i- -t%die-

@! rendered a de"ision e35%l2ati$7 Aadal of the "harge of deliberatel' withholding in his !60P appli"ation form information that he was maintaining a !o'ota /orolla "ar, b#t finding him 7%ilt& of deli8eratel& <it,,oldi$7 i$for6atio$ a8o%t t,e i$5o6e of ,i- 6ot,er

0s s#"h, the @! imposed #pon Aadal the penalt' of expu"sion from the Fniversit' and re)#ired him to reimb#rse all !60P benefits he had re"eived b#t if he does not vol#ntaril' ma:e reimb#rsement, it shall be Ceffe"ted b' the Fniversit' thr# o#tside legal a"tion.C @! de"ision elevated to the ?+e"#tive /ommittee of F.P. @iliman for review whi"h affirmed the de"ision of the @!M where#pon, Nadal a22ealed to t,e )oard of Re7e$t- .)OR1. 18. affirmed the de"ision of the @!M the penalt' was modified Cfrom ?+p#lsion to 8ne 2ear5 #spension. Aadal filed a $. of the 18. de"isionM g#ilt' *si+ members votethe 0de$F iss#ed a "ertifi"ation to the effe"t that Aadal was indeed a re"ipient of a s"holarship grant from 19;9 to 1983. si+ members. Nadal 8e77ed Pre-ide$t A8%e;a $ot to i--%e a$& 2re-- relea-e re7ardi$7 t,e 5a-e. Nadal filed <it, t,e RTC of H%eFo$ Cit& a 2etitio$ for #a da#us with preliminar' in,#n"tion and pra'er for a !.8 against President 0b#eva and the 18.. !he lower "o#rt r#led that the' are temporaril' restrained. >i-2e$-i$7 <it, t,e fili$7 of a 6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$, t,e 2etitio$er- filed t,e i$-ta$t 2etitio$ for certiorari a$d 2ro,i8itio$ <it, 2ra&er for t,e i--%a$5e of a$ i$4%$5tio$ or te62orar& re-trai$i$7 order ,

ISSUE+ 1. 9hether or not the respondent ,#dge gravel' ab#sed her dis"retion in iss#ing the $a' (9, 1993 writ of preliminar' in,#n"tion thereb' preventing the 18. from implementing the s#spension penalt' it had imposed on Aadal. (. 93A !&? .? P8A@?A! 4F@G? &8FG@ .? !.0IA?@ 6.8$ 0 F$IAG 4F.I @I/!I8A 8B?. !&? P?!I!I8A 68. $0A@0$F 6IG?@ 12 A0@0G =EL>+ 8n the se"ond iss#e presented for ad,#di"ation, the /o#rt finds that the lower "o#rt gravel' ab#sed its dis"retion in iss#ing the writ of preliminar' in,#n"tion of $a' (9, 1993. !he iss#an"e of the said writ was based on the lower "o#rtNs finding that the implementation of the dis"iplinar' san"tion of s#spension on Aadal Cwo#ld wor: in,#sti"e to the petitioner as it wo#ld dela' him in finishing his "o#rse, and "onse)#entl', in getting a de"ent and good pa'ing ,ob.C adl', s#"h a r#ling "onsiders onl' the sit#ation of Aadal witho#t ta:ing into a""o#nt the "ir"#mstan"es "learl' of his own ma:ing, whi"h led him into s#"h a predi"ament. $ore importantl', it has "ompletel' disregarded the overriding iss#e of a"ademi" freedom whi"h provides more than ample ,#stifi"ation for the imposition of a dis"iplinar' san"tion #pon an erring st#dent of an instit#tion of higher learning. 6rom the foregoing arg#ments, it is "lear that the lower "o#rt sho#ld have restrained itself from ass#ming ,#risdi"tion over the petition filed b' Aadal. &andamus is never iss#ed in do#btf#l "ases, a showing of a "lear and "ertain right on the part of the petitioner being re)#ired. :/ It is of no avail against an offi"ial or government agen"' whose d#t' re)#ires the e+er"ise of dis"retion or ,#dgment. 9&?.?68.?, the instant petition is G.0A!?@ and the lower "o#rt is hereb' ordered to @I $I mandamus. TUASON vs.REGISTER O* >EE>S, CALOOCAN Cit& G.R. No. (0/0 #a$%ar& '", 1"// NARVASA, J.: *ACTS+ Petitioner spo#ses *!#asons- were retired 2%8li5 -5,ool tea5,er-. 9ith f#nds from their retirement benefits and savings, the' bo#ght from /armel 6arms, In". a 2ie5e of la$d i$ t,e latterG- -%8di;i-io$ i$ Caloo5a$ Cit&. In virt#e of this sale, /armelNs !orrens title was "an"elled and a new one iss#ed in the name of the !#asons. !he !#asons too: possession of their propert'. ome eight *8- 'ears thereafter, the !#asonsN travails began. T,e& <o9e %2 o$e 6or$i$7 to di-5o;er t,at 8& 2re-ide$tial flat, t,e& <ere $o lo$7er t,e o<$er- of t,e la$d t,e& ,ad 2%r5,a-ed <it, t,eir ,ard@ear$ed 6o$e&, a$d t,at t,eir la$d a$d t,e ot,er lot- i$ t,e -%8di;i-io$ ,ad 8ee$ Ede5lared o2e$ for di-2o-itio$ a$d -ale to t,e 6e68er- of t,e Mala5a$a$7 =o6eo<$er- A--o5iatio$, I$5 ., the present bona fide o""#pants thereof.C 8n eptember 14, 19;35a 'ear almost to the da' after the de"laration of martial law $r. $ar"os, invo:ing his emergen"' powers, i--%ed Pre-ide$tial >e5ree No. '": <it, i66ediate effe5t . !he de"ree invalidated inter the petition for

a"ia the title of the !#asonsN vendor, /armel, whi"h had earlier p#r"hased from the Government the land it had s#bse)#entl' s#bdivided into several lots for sale to the p#bli" Said Pre-ide$tial >e5ree No. '": 6ade t,e fi$di$7 t,at Car6el ,ad failed to 5o62lete 2a&6e$t of t,e 2ri5e . $r. $ar"os disposed of the land of the petitioner spo#ses and others similarl' sit#ated as the', in the following imperio#s mannerL order and de"ree that an' and all sales "ontra"ts between the government and the original p#r"hasers, are hereb' "an"elled, and those between the latter and the s#bse)#ent transferees, and an' and all transfers are hereb' de"lared invalid and n#ll and void ab initio as against the GovernmentM 8n the strength of this presidential de"ree, the .egister of @eeds of /aloo"an /it' "a#sed the ins"ription on the T%a-o$-G title, t,at t,eir 5ertifi5ate of title i- de5lared i$;alid a$d $%ll a$d ;oid a! i itio a$d 5o$-idered 5a$5elled a- a7ai$-t t,e Go;er$6e$t a$d t,e 2ro2ert& de-5ri8ed ,erei$ i- de5lared o2e$ for di-2o-itio$ a$d -ale to t,e 6e68er- of t,e Mala5a$a$7 =o6eo<$er- A--o5iatio$, I$5. !he !#ason po#ses there#pon filed <it, t,i- Co%rt a 2etitio$ for certiorari a--aili$7 t,e Mar5o- de5ree aan arbitrar' meas#re whi"h deprived them of their propert' in favor of a sele"ted gro#p, in violation not onl' of the "onstit#tional provisions on d#e pro"ess and eminent domain 5 b#t also of the provisions of the Gand .egistration 0"t on the indefeasibilit' of !orrens titlesM ! and the' pra'ed that the Re7i-ter of >eed- 8e dire5ted to 5a$5el t,e dero7ator& i$-5ri2tio$ o$ t,eir title a$d re-tore it- effi5a5& .

ISSUE+ CBN T=E REME>Y O* PETITION *OR CERTIORARI CAS PROPER .IT NOT APPEARING T=AT PU)LIC RESPON>ENTS CERE )EING SUE> a- 4%di5ial or D%a-i@4%di5ial offi5er- <,o ,ad a5ted <it,o%t or i$ e35e-- of t,eir 4%ri-di5tio$, or <it, 7ra;e a8%-e of di-5retio$.1 =EL>+

!he pro"ed#ral iss#e is )#ite easil' disposed of. It is tr#e that the e3traodi$ar& <rit of 5ertiorari " 6a& 2ro2erl& i--%e to $%llif& o$l& $udicial or %uasi-$udicial acts, #nli:e the writ of prohibition whi"h ma' be dire"ted against acts either 'udicia" or ministeria". Se5tio$ 1, R%le !5 of t,e R%le- of Co%rt deals with the writ of certiorari in relation to Can' trib#nal, board or offi5er e3er5i-i$7 4%di5ial f%$5tio$- , <,ile Se5tio$ ' of the same .#le treats of the writ of prohibition in relation to Cpro"eedings of an' trib#nal, "orporation, board, or person ... e3er5i-i$7 f%$5tio$- 4%di5ial or 6i$i-terial .C &ut t'e (etitio $udicial (o)er. )ill !e s'o) u(o a alysis to !e i reality directed agai st a u la)ful e*ercise of

!he de5ree re;eal- t,at Mr. Mar5o- e3er5i-ed a$ o8;io%-l& 4%di5ial f%$5tio$ . &e made a determination of fa"ts, and applied the law to those fa"ts, de"laring what the legal rights of the parties were in the premises. T,e-e a5t- e--e$tiall& 5o$-tit%te a $udicial fu ctio , 1( or a$ e*ercise of $urisdictio + <,i5, i- t,e 2o<er a$d a%t,orit& to ,ear or tr& a$d de5ide or deter6i$e a 5a%-e. !hese a"ts ma' th#s be 2ro2erl& -tr%59 do<$ 8& t,e <rit of certiorari, 8e5a%-e do$e 8& a$ offi5er i$ t,e 2erfor6a$5e of <,at i$ e--e$5e i- a 4%di5ial f%$5tio$ , if it be shown that the a"ts were done witho#t or in e+"ess of ,#risdi"tion, or with grave ab#se of dis"retion. in"e $r. $ar"os was never vested with ,#di"ial power, s#"h power, as ever'one :nows, being vested in the #preme /o#rt and s#"h inferior "o#rts as ma' be established b' law O the ,#di"ial a"ts done b' him were in the "ir"#mstan"es indisp#tabl' perpetrated witho#t ,#risdi"tion. !he a"ts were "ompletel' alien to his offi"e as "hief e+e"#tive, and #tterl' be'ond the permissible s"ope of the legislative power that he had ass#med as head of the martial law regime. $oreover, he had ass#med to e+er"ise power O i.e. determined the relevant fa"ts and applied the law thereto witho#t a trial at whi"h all interested parties were a""orded the opport#nit' to add#"e eviden"e to f#rnish the basis for a determination of the fa"ts material to the "ontrovers'. &e made the finding ostensibl' on the basis of Cthe re"ords of the 1#rea# of Gands. In an' event, this /o#rt has it in its power to treat the 2etitio$ for certiorari a- o$e for 2ro,i8itio$ if the averments of the former s#ffi"ientl' made o#t a "ase for the latter. 1: /onsidered in this wise, it will also appear that an e+e"#tive offi"er had a"ted witho#t ,#risdi"tion O e+er"ised ,#di"ial power not granted to him b' the /onstit#tion or the laws O and had f#rthermore performed the a"t in violation of the "onstit#tional rights of the parties thereb' affe"ted. !he /o#rt will grant s#"h relief as ma' be proper and effi"a"io#s in the premises even if not spe"ifi"all' so#ght or set o#t in the pra'er of the appropriate pleading, the permissible relief being determined after all not b' the pra'er b#t b' the basi" averments of the partiesN pleadings. 109&?.?68.?, Presidential @e"ree Ao. (93 is de"lared to be #n"onstit#tional and void ab initio in all its parts.

SECURITY )ANI CORPORATION ,vs. IN>IANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY G.R. No. 10!1" ; #%$e ' , '((5 CARPIO, J.: *ACTS+
e"#rit' 1an: as mortgagee and Innovate"h as mortgagor entered into a real e-tate 6ort7a7e.

Innovate"h se"#red its P(7,000,000 loan from e"#rit' 1an: with a 6ort7a7e o$ fo%rtee$ 5o$do6i$i%6 %$it- lo5ated at Ala8a$7, M%$ti$l%2a Cit& with /ondomini#m /ertifi"ates of the .egister of @eeds of $a:ati /it'. Aebrida *Innovate"h%s Bp- informed e"#rit' 1an: that I$$o;ate5, -old t,e fo%rtee$ 5o$do6i$i%6 %$it- to I$dia$a of Ma5ta$, Ce8%. Innovate"h provided e"#rit' 1an: with 5o2ie- of t,e >eed of Sale <it, A--%62tio$ of Mort7a7e 5 it made with Indiana as well as Indiana%s loan appli"ation with 1an: of o#theast 0sia for P69,000,000. 0""ording to Innovate"h, part of the pro"eeds of Indiana%s loan with the 1an: of o#theast 0sia wo#ld be #sed to pa' the loan with e"#rit' 1an:. !he loa$ <it, Se5%rit& )a$9 6at%red <it,o%t 2a&6e$t fro6 eit,er I$$o;ate5, or I$dia$a . Se5%rit& )a$9 filed a 2etitio$ for $otarial fore5lo-%re of t,e fo%rtee$ 5o$do6i$i%6 %$it- . !he p#bli" a#"tion was heldM @#ring the p#bli" a#"tion, the "ondomini#m #nits were sold to e"#rit' 1an: I$$o;ate5, filed a$ a5tio$ a7ai$-t Se5%rit& )a$9 for A$$%l6e$t of E3tra4%di5ial *ore5lo-%re Sale *with !.8- .!/, $#ntinl#pa /it' 7ra$ted the 9rit of Preliminar' In,#n"tion in favor of Innovate"h. RTC Order 8e5a6e t,e -%84e5t of a 2etitio$ for certiorari filed 8& Se5%rit& )a$9 before the /0 whi"h was dismissed for la": of merit. /0 set aside its (4 0#g#st 1999 @e"ision and $%llified t,e <rit of 2reli6i$ar& i$4%$5tio$ i--%ed 8& t,e trial 5o%rt . Innovate"h filed a 6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$ 5 denied Innovate"h filed a 2etition before this /o#rt 5 denied Indiana filed a Co62lai$t@i$@I$ter;e$tio$ with pra'er for the iss#an"e !.8 before the trial "o#rt K Granted Se5%rit& )a$9 6o;ed for re5o$-ideratio$ of the 8rder 5 denied for la": of merit. Se5%rit& )a$9 <e$t to t,e Co%rt of A22eal- for relief @ de$ied d#e "o#rse to e"#rit' 1an:%s petition. e"#rit' 1an: filed a motion for re"onsideration K deniedM &en"e, the re"o#rse to this /o#rt.

I--%e C,et,er or $ot t,e fail%re to 5o62l& <it, t,e r%le o$ a -tate6e$t of 6aterial date- i$ t,e 2etitio$ 6a& 8e e35%-ed -i$5e t,e date- are e;ide$t fro6 t,e re5ord- .date of fili$7 of t,e 6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$ a22ear- i$ t,e 8od& of t,e 2etitio$1; <,et,er t,e 2etitio$ SU)STANTIALLY COMPLIES CIT= T=E REHUIREMENT =EL>+ In a"tions filed #nder R%le !5, the petition shall f#rther indi"ate the material dates showing when noti"e of the ,#dgment or final order or resol#tion s#b,e"t thereof was re"eived, when a motion for new trial or re"onsideration, if an', was filed and when noti"e of the denial thereof was re"eived. !he fail%re of t,e 2etitio$er to 5o62l& <it, a$& of t,e fore7oi$7 reD%ire6e$t- -,all 8e -%ffi5ie$t 7ro%$d for t,e di-6i--al of t,e 2etitio$.

!he .#les "learl' provide that $o$@5o62lia$5e <it, a$& of t,e reD%ire6e$t- shall be a s#ffi"ient gro#nd for the dismissal of the petition. If we appl' the .#les stri"tl', we "annot fa#lt the /o#rt of 0ppeals for dismissing e"#rit' 1an:%s petition. !he /o#rt of 0ppeals merel' followed the .#les. &owever, in the e3er5i-e of it- eD%it& 4%ri-di5tio$ t,i- Co%rt 6a& di-re7ard 2ro5ed%ral la2-e- -o t,at a 5a-e 6a& 8e re-ol;ed o$ it- 6erit- 8a-ed o$ t,e e;ide$5e 2re-e$ted 8& t,e 2artie-.1; .#les of pro"ed#re sho#ld promote, not defeat, s#bstantial ,#sti"e.18 &en"e, the /o#rt ma' opt to appl' the .#les liberall' to resolve the s#bstantial iss#es raised b' the parties.19 /ontrar' to the /o#rt of 0ppeals% findings, e"#rit' 1an: "orre"tl' asserted that page 13 of its petition states the date of fili$7 of t,e 6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$ on (3 6ebr#ar' 1999, or thirteen da's after the re"eipt of the 8rder.(1 !he petition also states the date of re5ei2t of $oti5e of de$ial of the motion for re"onsideration filed before the trial "o#rt. &en"e, the petition onl' la59ed t,e date of re5ei2t of t,e trial 5o%rtA- Order of 1 6ebr#ar' 1999 that was the s#b,e"t of the motion for re"onsideration. T,e -ta62ed date o$ t,e Order of 1 *e8r%ar& 1""" a$$e3ed to t,e 2etitio$ i- $ot 5lear e$o%7, for t,e Co%rt of A22eal- to deter6i$e <,e$ Se5%rit& )a$9A- 5o%$-el re5ei;ed a 5o2& of t,e Order. '' =o<e;er, %2o$ fili$7 it6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$ 8efore t,e Co%rt of A22eal-, Se5%rit& )a$9 atta5,ed a$ot,er 5o2& of t,e Order of 1

*e8r%ar& 1""".': T,i- ti6e, t,e -ta62ed date of re5ei2t of t,e Order -,o<- t,at t,e Se5%rit& )a$9A- 5o%$-el re5ei;ed t,e Order o$ 1( *e8r%ar& 1""". C,e$ Se5%rit& )a$9 f%r$i-,ed t,e Co%rt of A22eal- <it, t,e 5o2& of t,e trial 5o%rtA- Order 8eari$7 t,e -ta62ed date of it- re5ei2t, it -,o<ed it- <illi$7$e-- to re5tif& it- o6i--io$. Se5%rit& )a$9, i$ effe5t, -%8-ta$tiall& 5o62lied <it, t,e R%le-. In addition, the trial "o#rt wo#ld have dismissed the motion for re"onsideration o#tright if e"#rit' 1an: had filed it late. !he trial "o#rt%s 8rder of 3 Aovember 1999 does not show that e"#rit' 1an: filed the motion for re"onsideration o#t of time. !he ratio$ale for reD%iri$7 t,e -tate6e$t of 6aterial date- i- to deter6i$e t,e ti6eli$e-- of fili$7 of t,e 2etitio$ . Clearl&, Se5%rit& )a$9 filed t,e 6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$ <it, t,e trial 5o%rt o$ ti6e . e"#rit' 1an: also filed the petition before the /o#rt of 0ppeals within the reglementar' period. !he /o#rt reiterates that there is ample ,#rispr#den"e holding t,at t,e -%8-eD%e$t a$d -%8-ta$tial 5o62lia$5e of a 2art& 6a& 5all for t,e rela3atio$ of t,e r%le- of 2ro5ed%re. In the re"ent "ase of ,reat Sout'er Mariti#e Services Cor(oratio v. Acu-a ,(7 we held that Cthe fail#re to "ompl' with the r#le on a statement of material dates in the petition ma' be e+"#sed sin"e the dates are evident from the re"ords.C !he more material date for p#rposes of appeal to the /o#rt of 0ppeals is the date of re"eipt of the trial "o#rt%s order den'ing the motion for re"onsideration, whi"h date is admittedl' stated in the petition in the present "ase. !he other material dates ma' be gleaned from the re"ords of the "ase if reasonabl' evident. !h#s, in this "ase the /o#rt deems it proper to rela+ the .#les to give all the parties the "han"e to arg#e their "a#ses and defenses.

TORRES, #R. vs.SPS. AGUINAL>O G.R. No. 1!0'!/; #%$e '/, '((5 YNARES@SANTIAGO, J.: *ACTS+

.espondent5spo#ses 0g#inaldo filed before the 8/P of $anila, a "omplaint against petitioner !orres, 4r. for fal-ifi5atio$ of 2%8li5 do5%6e$t. !he' alleged that title- to t,eir 2ro2ertie- 5o;ered 8& TCT <ere tra$-ferred <it,o%t t,eir 9$o<led7e a$d 5o$-e$t i$ t,e $a6e of Torre- t,ro%7, a for7ed >eed of Sale 5 dated #%l& '1, 1" ". !orres 5 de$ied the allegations of forger' and "laimed that 0g#inaldo sold the s#b,e"t properties to him as eviden"ed b' the $ar"h 10, 1991 @eed of 0bsol#te ale. 8/P re"ommended the filing of an information for falsifi"ation of p#bli" do"#ment filed $!/ !orres moved for re"onsideration 5 denied. O$ a22eal, t,e Se5retar& of #%-ti5e re;er-ed and ordered the withdrawal of the information. !he 6otio$ for re5o$-ideratio$ filed 8& A7%i$aldo <a- de$ied. 0 $otion to 9ithdraw Information was filed whi"h the $!/ granted It sho#ld be noted that petitioner has not been arraigned . 0g#inaldo filed before the Co%rt of A22eal- a 2etitio$ for 5ertiorari <,i5, <a- 7ra$ted 5 $ar"h ((, (004 !orres% motion for re"onsideration was denied hen"e, the instant petition for review on "ertiorari

ISSUE+

9hether the order of the $!/5$anila dated 4#ne 11, (003 granting the motion to withdraw the information rendered moot the petition for "ertiorari filed b' 0g#inaldo for the p#rpose of reinstating the 0pril 30, (001 resol#tion of the 8/P of $anilaM and in the alternative, whether the r#le on provisional dismissal #nder e"tion 8, .#le 11; applies. =EL>+ NO.0nent the first iss#e, !orres "ontends that the order granting the withdrawal of the information rendered moot the petition for "ertiorari filed before the /o#rt of 0ppeals. T,e 5o$te$tio$ i- %$te$a8le. A 6otio$ to <it,dra< i$for6atio$ differ- fro6 a 6otio$ to di-6i-- . 9hile both p#t an end to an a"tion filed in "o#rt, t,eir le7al effe5t ;arie-. !he order granting the withdrawal of the information

attains finalit' after fifteen *17- da's from re"eipt thereof, <it,o%t 2re4%di5e to t,e re@fili$7 of t,e i$for6atio$ %2o$ rei$;e-ti7atio$. 8n the other hand, the order granting a motion to dismiss be"omes final fifteen *17- da's after re"eipt thereof, <it, 2re4%di5e to t,e re@fili$7 of t,e -a6e 5a-e o$5e -%5, order a5,ie;e- fi$alit& . In !a%ares (( v. !a"isin), a motion to dismiss was filed th#s p#tting into pla"e the time5bar r#le on provisional dismissal. In the "ase at bar, a motion to withdraw information was filed and not a motion to dismiss. &en"e, !a%ares (( v. !a"isin) wo#ld not appl'. Fnli:e a motion to dismiss, a motion to withdraw information is not time5barred and does not fall within the ambit of e"tion 8, .#le 11; of the .evised .#les of /riminal Pro"ed#re whi"h provides that the law on provisional dismissal be"omes operative on"e the ,#dge dismisses, with the e+press "onsent of the a""#sed and with noti"e to the offended part'L *a- a "ase involving a penalt' of imprisonment not e+"eeding si+ *6- 'ears or a fine of an' amo#nt, or both, where s#"h provisional dismissal shall be"ome permanent one *1- 'ear after iss#an"e of the order witho#t the "ase having been revivedM or *b- a "ase involving a penalt' of imprisonment of more than si+ *6- 'ears, where s#"h provisional dismissal shall be"ome permanent two *(- 'ears after iss#an"e of the order witho#t the "ase having been revived. In s#m, prose"#tors "ontrol and dire"t the prose"#tion of "riminal offenses, in"l#ding the "ond#"t of preliminar' investigation, s#b,e"t to review b' the e"retar' of 4#sti"e. 9hile his resol#tion is pers#asive, it is not binding on the "o#rts. !he trial "o#rt m#st at all times ma:e its own independent assessment of the merits of ea"h "ase. T,%-, it i- o$l& <,ere t,e de5i-io$ of t,e #%-ti5e Se5retar&, or t,e trial 5o%rt, a- t,e 5a-e 6a& 8e, i- tai$ted <it, 7ra;e a8%-e of di-5retio$ a6o%$ti$7 to la59 or e35e-- of 4%ri-di5tio$ t,at t,e Co%rt of A22eal- 6a& ta9e 5o7$iFa$5e of t,e 5a-e i$ a 2etitio$ for 5ertiorari %$der R%le !5 of t,e Re;i-ed R%le- of Ci;il Pro5ed%re <,o-e de5i-io$ 6a& t,e$ 8e a22ealed to t,i- Co%rt 8& <a& of a 2etitio$ for re;ie< o$ 5ertiorari . !he /o#rt of 0ppeals held that the 4#sti"e e"retar' "ommitted grave ab#se of dis"retion be"a#se he based his findings on the la": of probable "a#se on the 1991 @eed of ale when what was assailed was the 19;9 @eed of ale.30 It r#led that the defenses raised b' !orres sho#ld not have been "onsidered d#ring the preliminar' investigation b#t sho#ld be threshed o#t onl' d#ring trial. 31 8nl' the eviden"e presented b' the "omplainant sho#ld be "onsidered in determining probable "a#se or the la": thereof. Ce are $ot 2er-%aded. T,e Co%rt of A22eal- erred i$ rel&i$7 -olel& o$ t,e affida;it@5o62lai$t a$d t,e N)I re2ort:' a$d di-re7ardi$7 totall& t,e 5o%$ter@affida;it a$d do5%6e$tar& e;ide$5e of 2etitio$er. !he "o#rt is in"lined to grant the motion of the p#bli" prose"#tor. C=ERE*ORE, the petition is GRANTE>.

LI)ERAL PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 1"1 1; Ma& !, '(1( )RION, J.: *ACTS+

!he "hallenged r#ling is a Per /#riam .esol#tion of the /ommission on ?le"tions */8$?G?/- 1 dated 0pril 1(, (010 in PP5105*@$- granting the appli"ation for registration of the Aa"ionalista Part'KAationalist People%s /oalition *AP5AP/ or "oalition- and deferring the )#estion of the "oalition%s dominant minorit' stat#s to a f#t#re resol#tion. !he "hallenge "omes from the Giberal Part' *GP- ( thro#gh a petition for certiorari and prohibition3 with a pra'er for the iss#an"e of a preliminar' in,#n"tion or a stat#s )#o order. /8$?G?/ prom#lgated .esol#tion Ao. 8646 setting 0#g#st 1;, (009 as the last da' for the filing of petitions for registration of politi"al parties. /8$?G?/ prom#lgated .esol#tion Ao. 8;7(, providing, among others, for the r#les for the filing of petitions for a""reditation for the determination of the dominant ma,orit' part', the dominant minorit' part', ten ma,or national parties, and two ma,or lo"al parties LP filed <it, t,e COMELEC it- 2etitio$ for a55reditatio$ a- do6i$a$t 6i$orit& part'.

8n the same date, the Na5io$ali-ta Part& .NP1 a$d t,e Natio$ali-t Peo2leA- Coalitio$ .NPC1 filed a 2etitio$ for re7i-tratio$ a- a 5oalitio$ ..P-.PC1 a$d a-9ed t,at Eit 8e re5o7$iFed a$d a55redited a- t,e do6i$a$t 6i$orit& 2art& for p#rposes of the $a' 10, (010 ele"tions.C4 GP filed its 8pposition7 to the AP5AP/%s petition not a d#l' registered "oalition of politi"al parties at the time of filing of their petition for a""reditation as dominant minorit' part'M no ,#risdi"tion to entertain the petition for registration as a "oalition be"a#se the petition sho#ld have been first bro#ght before the proper @ivisionM ?n ban" 7ra$ted t,e NP@NPCA- 2etitio$ for re7i-tratio$ a- a 5oalitio$ L the registration of "oalitions involves the e+er"ise of its administrative powers and not its )#asi5,#di"ial powersM hen"e, the en ban" "an dire"tl' a"t on it. 8n the timeliness of the filing of the petition, the en ban" held that no r#le e+ists setting a deadline for the registration of "oalitions. !he GP now assails the 0pril 1(, (010 /8$?G?/ .esol#tion for having been iss#ed with grave ab#se of dis"retion, as followsL!he /8$?G?/ en ban" has no ,#risdi"tion at the first instan"e to entertain petitions for registration of politi"al "oalitionsM!he /8$?G?/ gravel' ab#sed its dis"retion when it allowed the registration of the p#rported AP5AP/ "oalition despite the lapse of the deadline for registrationM!he /8$?G?/ gravel' ab#sed its dis"retion when it allowed the registration of the p#rported AP5AP/ "oalition despite patent and manifest violations of the AP/ /onstit#tion and 1'5GawsM and t,e re-2o$de$t- ar7%e t,at t,e 2re-e$t 2etitio$ rai-e- 6ere error- of 4%d76e$t t,at are $ot <it,i$ t,e Co%rtA- a%t,orit& to a5t %2o$ %$der it- 5ertiorari 4%ri-di5tio$, -i$5e t,e 2re-e$t 2etitio$ 6erel& a--ail- t,e e$ 8a$5A- a22re5iatio$ of fa5t- a$d e;ide$5e.

ISSUE+ a. ho#ld the petition be dismissed o#tright for pro"ed#ral and te"hni"al infirmitiesP 93A petition%s "ited gro#nds are mere errors of law and do not "onstit#te grave ab#se of dis"retion amo#nting to la": or e+"ess of ,#risdi"tion =EL>+ !he respondents ne+t arg#e that the petition%s "ited gro#nds are mere errors of law and do not "onstit#te grave ab#se of dis"retion amo#nting to la": or e+"ess of ,#risdi"tion. !his ob,e"tion "an be read as a fa"ial ob,e"tion to the petition or as a s#bstantive one that goes into the merits of the petition. 9e will dis"#ss #nder the present topi" the fa"ial ob,e"tion, as it is a threshold iss#e that determines whether we shall pro"eed to "onsider the "ase or simpl' dismiss the petition o#tright. 0 fa"ial ob,e"tion is meritorio#s if, e+pressl' and on the fa"e of the petition, what is evident as "ited gro#nds are erroneo#s appli"ations of the law rather than grave ab#se of dis"retion amo#nting to la": or e+"ess of ,#risdi"tion. 0fter d#e "onsideration, <e 5o$5l%de t,at t,e 2etitio$ 2a--e- t,e fa5ial o84e5tio$ te-t. In $adrigal !ransport, In". v. Gapanda' &oldings /orporation, 30 the /o#rt, thro#gh former /hief 4#sti"e 0rtemio B. Panganiban, gave a ver' s#""in"t e+position of grave ab#se of dis"retion amo#nting to la": or e+"ess of ,#risdi"tion in relation to errors of law. !he /o#rt then saidL 0 writ of "ertiorari ma' be iss#ed onl' for the "orre"tion of errors of ,#risdi"tion or grave ab#se of dis"retion amo#nting to la": or e+"ess of ,#risdi"tion. !he writ "annot be #sed for an' other p#rpose, as its f#n"tion is limited to :eeping the inferior "o#rt within the bo#nds of its ,#risdi"tion. ++++ C9itho#t ,#risdi"tionC means that the "o#rt a"ted with absol#te la": of a#thorit'. !here is Ce+"ess of ,#risdi"tionC when the "o#rt trans"ends its power or a"ts witho#t an' stat#tor' a#thorit'. CGrave ab#se of dis"retionC implies s#"h "apri"io#s and whimsi"al e+er"ise of ,#dgment as to be e)#ivalent to la": or e+"ess of ,#risdi"tionM in other words, power is e+er"ised in an arbitrar' or despoti" manner b' reason of passion, pre,#di"e, or personal hostilit'M and s#"h e+er"ise is so patent or so gross as to amo#nt to an evasion of a positive d#t' or to a virt#al ref#sal either to perform the d#t' en,oined or to a"t at all in "ontemplation of law. )et<ee$ a$ a22eal a$d a 2etitio$ for 5ertiorari, t,ere are -%8-ta$tial di-ti$5tio$- whi"h shall be e+plained below. A- to t,e P%r2o-e. Certiorari is a remed' designed for the "orre"tion of errors of ,#risdi"tion, not errors of ,#dgment. In *ure +oods Corporation v. ,-.C, we e+plained the simple reason for the r#le in this lightL C9hen a "o#rt e+er"ises its ,#risdi"tion, an error "ommitted while so engaged does not deprive it of the ,#risdi"tion being e+er"ised when the error is "ommitted. If it did, ever' error "ommitted b' a "o#rt wo#ld deprive it of its ,#risdi"tion and ever' erroneo#s ,#dgment wo#ld be a void ,#dgment. !his "annot be allowed. !he administration of ,#sti"e wo#ld not s#rvive s#"h

a r#le. /onse)#entl', an error of ,#dgment that the "o#rt ma' "ommit in the e+er"ise of its ,#risdi"tion is not "orre"tDaEble thro#gh the original "ivil a"tion of certiorari.C !he s#pervisor' ,#risdi"tion of a "o#rt over the iss#an"e of a writ of certiorari "annot be e+er"ised for the p#rpose of reviewing the intrinsi" "orre"tness of a ,#dgment of the lower "o#rt O o$ t,e 8a-i- eit,er of t,e la< or t,e fa5t- of t,e 5a-e, or of t,e <i-do6 or le7al -o%$d$e-- of t,e de5i-io$ . ?ven if the findings of the "o#rt are in"orre"t, as long as it has ,#risdi"tion over the "ase, s#"h "orre"tion is normall' be'ond the provin"e of certiorari. 9here the error is not one of ,#risdi"tion, b#t of an error of law or fa"t O a mista:e of ,#dgment O appeal is the remed'. D?mphasis s#pplied.E !he most obvio#s gro#nd "ited in the petition that, if properl' established, wo#ld "onstit#te grave ab#se of dis"retion is the alleged #nwarranted a"tion of the en banc in a"ting on the registration of the AP5AP/ when the /8$?G?/%s own .#les of Pro"ed#re provides that registration is #nder the ,#risdi"tion of the @ivision at the first instan"e. !his alleged error is more than an error of law. If this "ited gro#nd is "orre"t, then the en ban" a"ted witho#t legal a#thorit' and thereb' "ommitted a ,#risdi"tional transgressionM31 its a"tion, being #ltra vires, wo#ld be a n#llit'. 0nother allegation of an u"tra vires a"t is that the /8$?G?/, b' appropriate resol#tion, ordered that 0#g#st 1;, (009 be the "#t5off date for the registration of parties, and 'et approved the registration of AP5AP/ long after this "#t5off date had passed witho#t an' valid ,#stifi"ation or reason for s#spending the r#le. 6or the en ban" to so a"t was not a mere error of law. !he grant of registration was an a"t o#tside mandator' legal parameters and was therefore done when the /8$?G?/ no longer had the a#thorit' to a"t on it. In this sense, it is a proper allegation of grave ab#se of dis"retion #nder .#le 64 of the .#les of /o#rt. C=ERE*ORE, premises "onsidered, we hereb' G.0A! the petition and, a""ordingl', AFGGI62 and .esol#tion of the /8$?G?/. ?! 0 I@? the