REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
Branch 33
Bauang La Union

LUCINDA DE GUZMAN, et al., Crim. Cases 2097-BG

Plaintiffs,

-versus- For: Specific Performance

RURAL BANK OF BAUANG,

INC., represented by;
PANCRACIO Q. NISCE,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

---------------------------------------------------

DEFENDANT through counsel PETITIONS this Honorable

Court and in support thereof states:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the

Rules of Court to question the Decision dated March 6, 2019 of the
Honorable Regional Trial Court of Bauang La Union, Branch 33 for
having been issued in violation of due process of law.

2. Certified True Copy of the subject Decision is attached

here as Annex “1”.
DIRECT ACTION TO THIS HONORABLE COURT/TIMELINESS
OF THE PETITION

3. A direction Petition to this Honorable Regional Trial

Court of Bauang La Union was filed because petitioner was deprived
of due process and there is an extreme urgency for relief.

4. The subject Decision was promulgated on 6 March 2019

hence the present Petition was filed within the 60 days prescribed
period.

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. This is a case for violation of BP 22 against

petitioner/accused.

6. In it, she was acquitted of any criminal violation.

7. However, the court ruled that she was civilly liable for the
sum of the amount of P620,000.00 plus legal interest of 6% and
attorney’s fees of P20,000.00.

ISSUES

8. The issue is whether the MTC has the jurisdiction to

award civil damages in the amount of P620,000.00.

9. Whether or not the MTC committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction to make the said civil
damages award.

DISCUSSIONS

10. In the case of Nuque vs. Aquino et.al., promulgated July

8 2015, the Court states that;
Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that; Petition for certiorari. When any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions 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, nor 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 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, or resolution subject thereof copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification
of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
Section 3, Rule 46.

Aside from the remedy of appeal discussed above, our

jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the plain and
adequate remedy referred to in the foregoing rule is a motion for
reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution, the filing of
which is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil
action for certiorari. It is true that there are exceptions to the above
rule, to wit: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the
court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in
the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon
by the lower court, or are the same as those 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 prejudice
the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject
matter of the action 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, in a 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 proceedings was ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue
raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.
 11. Thus, the Decision of the RTC denying the Motion for
Reconsideration is void ab initio for in violation of due process.

12. Having been issued beyond its jurisdictional amount, the

same is an act constituting as a grave abuse of discretion.

13. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or

whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic
manner by reason of passion and hostility.

14. Unarguably, a Decision decreeing civil damages beyond

the jurisdictional amount of an MTC is one that has been
committed with grave abuse of discretion and should be reversed.

PRAYER

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is prayed that the 6 March 2019

Decision of the Honorable Regional Trial Court be reversed and set
aside for being void ab initio.

All relief just and equitable are prayed for, Valenzuela City for
Quezon City 23 April 2019.

ROSENDO BARTOLOME MENESES

For RBBI
17-2 Suite C Bayanihan Street West Triangle Homes 1 Quezon City
1106 Philippines
IBP No. 1026762/01-26-19/Makati City
PTR No. 4750586/01-05-19/Makati City
Roll No. 47451, 5-07-02 MCLE Compliance No. V-0012067 March
17, 2018
Notice and Copy furnished; Explanation:

ATTY. PAOLO GONZALO TUAZON GARDINEZ

For Plaintiffs
Consolation Street Bacnotan 2515 La Union Philippines

This pleading was filed and/or served by registered mail

and/or private courier for lack of messenger to effect personal
service.

ROSENDO BARTOLOME MENESES