Zuellig Freight and Cargo System vs.

NLRC 701 SCRA 561

In special civil action for certiorari brought against a court or quasi-judicial body
with jurisdiction over a case, petitioner carries the burden of proving that the court
or quasi-commercial body not a merely reversible error but a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order.

Dy-coco vs. CA 702 SCRA 566

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action
that may be resorted to only in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Chingkoe vs. Republic, 702 SCRA 677

Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter
remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence.
Questions of facts cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari. Only
established or admitted facts can be considered.
The Rules precludes recourse to the special civil action of certiorari if appeal by
way of certiorari are mutually exclusive are not alternative or successive.

Ampil vs. Ombudsman, 703 SCRA 1

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the
extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of facts nor law are
entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion.

Philippine National Bank vs. Arcobillas, 703 SCRA 226

A Motion for Reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved

party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari; Exceptions: (a) where the
order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the
question raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon
in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the
question and any further delay would prejudiced the interest of the Government or
of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where under
the circumstances , a Motion for Reconsideration would be useless; (e) where
petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f)
where the criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower
court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceeding is ex parte or in
which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is
one purely of law or where public interest is involved.

Malayang Mangagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations

Commission, 705 SCRA 24

It is settled that the question of facts cannot be raised in an original action for
certiorari. Only established or admitted facts can be considered.
Findings of facts made by the Labor Arbiters and affirmed by the National Labor
Relation Commission are not only entitled to great respect, but even finality, and
are considered binding if the same are supported by substantial evidence.

Dongon vs. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co. Inc., 704 SCRA 56

An original action for certiorari will not proper if the remedy of appeal is available,
for an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
and an original action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are mutually exclusive,
not alternative nor successive, remedies.

Abdulrahman vs. Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao

The court may reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari (1) when there is no
showing of grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the
government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, such as violations of the Rules
of Court or Supreme Court circulars.
There are well-settled exceptions to the general rule that a motion for
reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filling of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment,
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by
reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility, so patent or so gross as to amount
to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to perform the mandated duty or
to act at all in contemplation of law.

Yalong vs. People, 704 SCRA 195

It is fundamental that a petition for certiorari is an original action and, as such, it

cannot be gainsaid that the Regional Trial Court took cognizance of and resolved the
aforesaid petition in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

Castells vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines, 704 SCRA 206

Despite the rigid wording of Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules, as amended by A.M. No.
07-7-12-SC which now disallows an extension of 60-day reglementary period to file
a petition for certiorari - courts may nevertheless extend the same, subjects to its
sound discretion.

Esguerra vs. Holcim Philippines Inc., 704 SCRA 490

No appeal may be taken from an order of execution and a party who challenges
such order may file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.

Heirs of Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga vs. Court of Appeals, Special

21th Division, 705 SCRA 84

The Rule is well settled that a motion for reconsideration before the respondent
court is an indispensable condition to the filling of a special civil action for certiorari
before the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, this rule admits exceptions.

Borra vs. Court of Appeals, 705 SCRA 222

Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which is applied in a suppletory character to cases

covered by the NLRC rules, provided that in all the instances enumerated under the
said Rules, where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party
may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.

Alliance for Nationalism and Democracy (ANAD) vs. Commission on Election,

705 SCRA 340

The only question that may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Section 2,
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse
of discresion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Aldover vs. C.A., 705 SCRA 340

A petition for certiorari leis only to correct acted rendered without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Its principal office is only to keep the
inferior court within the parameter of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from
committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to review the intrinsic correctness
of the private respondents ruling.

Steel Corporation of the Philippines vs. Mapfre Insular Insurance Corp.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy when the issue raised
involves errors of jurisdiction. On the other hand, a petition for review under Rule 43
is the proper remedy when the issue raised involves error in judgment.

Abang Lingkod Party-List vs. Commission on Election, 708 SCRA 133

View that it is only when the petitioner has sufficiently shown that the Commission
on Election may have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction that this Court should take cognizance of the petition filed
under Rule 64.

Reyes vs. Commission on Election, 708 SCRA 197

The special civil action of certiorari is defined in the Rules of Court thus: when any
tribunal, broad or officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function has acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as
law and justice may require.

Dagan vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Considering that a special civil action for certiorari is within the concurrent original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals such petition should be
initially filed with the Court of Appeals in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts.

Ramos vs. BPI Family Savings Bank Inc., 712 SCRA 359

To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari , the petitioner must
satisfactorily show that the court or the quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the
discretion conferred upon them.

Republic vs. Cantor, 711 SCRA 590

While jurisprudence tells us that no appeal can be made from the trial courts
judgment, an aggrieved party may, nevertheless file a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to question any abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction that transpired.

People vs. Sandiganbayan, 712 SCRA 359

A special civil action for certiorari is an independent action based on the specific
grounds provided in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and can prosper only
the jurisdictional error, or the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction committed by an inferior court or judge is alleged and proved to exist.

Maglalang vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 712 SCRA 472

As a rule, petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is valid only when the question
involved is an error of jurisdiction, or when there is a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court or tribunals
exercising quasi-judicial function.

People vs. Castaeda, Jr., 712 SCRA 800

While a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for

certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it must be shown that there was a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of
due process.
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment
as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.