REMEDY OF CERTIORARI (RULE 65)

It is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction

and not errors of judgment. The acceptance of a petition for certiorari,
as well as the grant if due course thereto is, in general, addressed to
the sound discretion of the court.
Certiorari on Rule 65 may be resorted when any tribunal, board
or officer 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.
How to file:
-

A person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the

proper court, alleging the facts and certainty that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and

justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the
judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings

and

documents

relevant

thereto,

and

sworn

certification of non-forum shopping. Non-compliance of this

requirement would cause the dismissal of the petition.
When to File
-

The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from
notice of judgment, order of resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion
is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from
notice of the denial of said motion.

The 60-day period starts to run from the date petitioner receives
the assailed judgment, final order or resolution, or the denial of
the motion for reconsideration or new trial timely file.

The general rule is that a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

before Higher Court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been
given, through motion of reconsideration, a chance to correct the
errors imputed to it.
Exceptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

When the issue raised is purely of law

When public interest is involved
In case of urgency
Where the order is patent nullity
Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration

would be useless.
6. Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent
and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable
7. Lack of due process
8. Where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner
had no opportunity to object
9. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public
interest is involved.
The rule is that the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error
proceedings from judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a
criminal case. The reason is that judgment of acquittal is immediately
final and executory, and the prosecution, and the prosecution is barred
from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy be violated.

COURTS POWER TO SUSPEND THE EXECUTION OF

FINAL JUDGMENT OR TO CAUSE A MODIFICATION
The rule that it is the ministerial duty of the court to order the
execution of a final judgment admits of certain exceptions. The court
has the authority to suspend the execution of a final judgment or to
cause a modification thereof as and when it becomes imperative in the
higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it.

EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the
modification is intended to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law
and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the
highest court of the land. The judgment is executor.

EXECUTION OF CIVIL JUDGMENT AGAINST EMPLOYER

OF THE ACCUSED-EMPLOYEE
Before execution of civil judgment against an employers
subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code ensues,
there must be a determination, in a hearing set for the purpose of 1)
the existence of an employer-employee relationship; 2) that the
employer is engaged in some kind of industry; 3) that the employee is
adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and found to have committed the
offense in the discharge of his duties not necessarily any offense he

commits "while" in the discharge of such duties; and 4) that said

employee is insolvent.