Jangcan, Christine Joy S.

JD – 2C
CERTIORARI NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A LOST APPEAL (RULE 65)

MARILOU PUNONGBAYAN-VISITACION vs. PEOPLE AND CARMELITA P. PUNONGBAYAN

January 10, 2018
G.R. No. 194214
MARTIRES, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner (Visitacion) was the corporate secretary and assistant treasurer of St. Peter's College of Iligan
City. She wrote a letter to private respondent (Punongbayan) which insulted the latter so Punongbayan filed
a Complaint for Libel against Visitacion.

The RTC convicted Visitacion of libel. The trial court disregarded Visitacion's defense of good faith finding
that her act of writing the disputed letter was motivated by hostility or malice.

The CA likewise dismissed Visitacion's petition. It posited that the promulgation of the judgment despite
Visitacion's absence was proper. In addition, the CA expounded that Visitacion should have filed an appeal
and not a petition for certiorari. The appellate court opined that it should have been through an appeal
where she could have raised the issues in the present petition for certiorari. It noted that at the time
Visitacion filed her petition, the period to file an appeal had yet to expire. Thus, the CA elucidated that the
use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari because it is not a
substitute for a lost appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA acted contrary to law in not treating petitioner's petition for certiorari as appeal,
notwithstanding the fact that such petition was filed within the reglementary period of time to file an appeal
and despite existence of valid reasons to treat it as an appeal.

RULING:

Yes, the CA erred.

One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse
of discretion.

The general rule that an appeal and a certiorari are not interchangeable admits exceptions. In Department
of Education v. Cuanan, the Court exercised liberality and considered the petition for certiorari filed therein
as an appeal:

The remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from notice of the resolution. Recourse to a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 renders the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy. Nonetheless, there
are exceptions to this rule, to wit: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates;
(b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d)
when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. As will be shown
forthwith, exception (c) applies to the present case.

Furthermore, while a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition
for certiorari, immediate recourse to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is warranted where the order
is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; where petitioner was deprived of due process
and there is extreme urgency for relief; where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of
due process; where the proceeding was ex parte or one in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object.

In the case at bar, the Court finds that the interest of substantial justice warrants the relaxation of the rules
and treats Visitacion's petition for certiorari as an appeal. This is especially true considering that the same
was filed within the reglementary period to file an appeal. It is noteworthy that in the litany of cases where
the Court did not consider certiorari as an appeal, the former remedy was filed beyond the 15-day period
to interpose an appeal.

The petition is granted.

Jangcan, Christine Joy S. JD – 2C
CERTIORARI NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A LOST APPEAL (RULE 65)

CEFERINA LOPEZ TAN vs. SPOUSES APOLINAR P. ANTAZO and GENOVEVA O. ANTAZO
G.R. No. 187208
February 23, 2011
PEREZ, J.

FACTS:

Respondent Spouses Apolinar and Genoveva Antazo are the registered owners of two parcels of land. An
accion reinvindicatoria suit with damages was filed by respondents against petitioner for encroaching on
their properties. The RTC rendered judgment favoring respondents.

The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s petition for adopting a wrong remedy or mode of
appeal. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was subsequently denied.

Petitioner maintains that she rightfully filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. While conceding that certiorari is available
only if there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioner
avers that her case presents an exception to such general rule because the decision rendered by the trial
court is an example of an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

Petitioner justifies the mode of appeal she adopted before the CA in that under the Rules of Court, no appeal
may be taken from an order denying a motion for reconsideration, i.e., the Resolution of the RTC. Petitioner
prays for a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it is proper for the petitioner to have had filed a petition for certiorari before the CA as a
remedy against the decision of the RTC.

RULING: NO.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a pleading limited to correction of errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is
to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following
requirements are alleged in and established by the petition: (1) that the writ is directed against a tribunal, a
board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) that such tribunal, board or officer
has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction; and (3) that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.

Only the first requisite is present in the case. In this case, the remedy of appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules
of Court was clearly available to petitioner. She however chose to file a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 to salvage her lost appeal.

Regarding to the second requisite, it is well-settled that a petition for certiorari against a court which has
jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The burden is on the
part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order. Mere abuse of
discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term “grave abuse of discretion” is defined as a capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner because of passion or hostility.

A petition for the writ of certiorari does not deal with errors of judgment. Nor does it include a mistake in
the appreciation of the contending parties’ respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative weight.
Verily, the errors ascribed by petitioner are not proper subjects of a petition for certiorari.

Anent the third requisite, a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the
aggrieved party. The party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is proscribed from assailing the
decision or final order of said court via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court because such recourse is proper only
if the party has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. Furthermore, certiorari cannot
be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.

The petition is DENIED.

Jangcan, Christine Joy S. JD – 2C
CERTIORARI NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A LOST APPEAL (RULE 65)

ISABEL N. GUZMAN vs. ANIANO N. GUZMAN and PRIMITIVA G. MONTEALTO

G.R. No. 172588
March 13, 2013
BRION, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner filed with the MTC a complaint for ejectment against her children, respondents. She alleged that
she and Arnold N. Guzman owned the 6/7th and 1/7th portions, respectively, of a 1,446-square meter parcel
of land in Cagayan. The respondents occupied the land by tolerance; the respondents did not comply with
her written demand to vacate the property; and subsequent barangay conciliation proceedings failed to settle
the differences between them. The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the RTC set aside such ruling.
It took into account the petitioner’s transfer of rights in the respondents’ favor which, it held, could not be
unilaterally revoked without a court action. It also noted that the petitioner failed to allege and prove that
earnest efforts at a compromise have been exerted prior to the filing of the complaint.

After filing her third motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with
the CA, alleging that the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion: (a) in deciding the case based on
matters not raised as issues on appeal; (b) in finding that the transfer of rights could not be unilaterally
revoked without a court action; (c) in holding that the petitioner failed to prove that earnest efforts at a
compromise have been exerted prior to the filing of the complaint; and (d) in denying the petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration on a mere technicality.

Upon appeal, the CA dismissed the petition. It noted that a Rule 42 petition for review, not a Rule 65
petition for certiorari, was the proper remedy to assail an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. It found that the petitioner lost her chance to appeal when she filed a second motion
for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. The CA also held
that the petitioner cannot validly claim that the respondents occupied the properties through mere tolerance
since they were co-owners of the property as compulsory heirs of Alfonso Guzman, the original owner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for certiorari.

RULING: NO. (The petition is denied.)

The petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. The petitioner’s resort to a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to
assail the RTC decision and orders is misplaced. When the RTC issued its decision and orders, it did so in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; the proper remedy therefrom is a Rule 42 petition for
review. Instead, the petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration and thereby lost her right to appeal;
a second motion for reconsideration being a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules
of Court. The petitioner’s subsequent motions for reconsideration should be considered as mere scraps of
paper, not having been filed at all, and unable to toll the reglementary period for an appeal.

The RTC decision became final and executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt of the denial of the first
motion for reconsideration. It is elementary that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is
"immutable and unalterable, and can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant
to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the
modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land." Thus,
the RTC decision, even if allegedly erroneous, can no longer be modified.

Certiorari, by its very nature, is proper only when appeal is not available to the aggrieved party; the remedies
of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. It cannot substitute for a lost
appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse.

Certiorari is a limited form of review. It is restricted to resolving errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of
discretion, not errors of judgment. Indeed, as long as the lower courts act within their jurisdiction, alleged
errors committed in the exercise of their discretion will amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by
an appeal or a petition for review.

In this case, the imputed errors pertained to the RTC’s appreciation of matters not raised as errors on appeal,
specifically, the transfer of rights and subsequent unilateral revocation, and the strictly enforced rule on
notice of hearing. These matters involve only the RTC’s appreciation of facts and its application of the law;
the errors raised do not involve the RTC’s jurisdiction, but merely amount to a claim of erroneous exercise
of judgment.
Jangcan, Christine Joy S. JD – 2C
CERTIORARI NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A LOST APPEAL (RULE 65)

SPOUSES JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E. DYCOCO vs. CA, SIAPNO-SANCHEZ and BERMA
G.R. No. 147257
July 31, 2013
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner-spouses filed a complaint for ejectment, cancellation of certificates of land transfer, damages and
injunction against private respondents in the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB. They
alleged that they are the absolute and registered owners of a parcel of land situated in Albay, covered by
Original Certificate of Title. According to them, the respondents named in the complaint took advantage of
the liberality of petitioner-spouses, entered the subject property, successfully registered themselves as
tenants for agrarian reform purposes, and occupied and cultivated the property to the prejudice of petitioner-
spouses. Said respondents deprived petitioner-spouses of the enjoyment and possession of the property
without paying petitioner-spouses or the Land Bank the rentals due thereon. Moreover, in violation of
agrarian reform laws, said respondents subleased their respective landholdings to other persons.

The DARAB found that both private respondents were beneficiaries of PD 27 and that they are no longer
tenants but owners of their respective portions of the property as evidenced by OCT in the name of private
respondent Siapno-Sanchez and in the name of private respondent Berma. Ejectment would therefore not
lie as against them as landholdings. Thus, the immediate reinstatement of private respondents to their
respective landholdings was ordered.

Petitioner-spouses received a copy of the DARAB decision on April 3, 2000 and had until April 18, 2000
to file an appeal. They filed a motion in the CA praying for an extension of 30 days within which to file
their intended petition. The CA granted them an extension of 15 days, with warning that no further extension
will be given. Thus, petitioner-spouses had until May 3, 2000 to file their petition. Petitioner-spouses filed
the petition by registered mail on May 8, 2000. The petition was denied due course and dismissed by the
CA for late filing. Petitioner-spouses moved for reconsideration but it was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not herein petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which is a proper remedy.

RULING: NO. (The petition is dismissed)

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. In this case, petitioner-spouses received the Resolution dated January 1,
2001 on January 19, 2001 and, under the rules, had until February 5, 2001 to file an appeal by way of a
petition for review on certiorari in this Court. Petitioner-spouses allowed this period to lapse without filing
an appeal and, instead, filed this petition for certiorari on March 16, 2001.

Secondly, petitioner-spouses claim that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their
appeal on the ground of late filing. This is also wrong. The CA granted petitioner-spouses a 15-day
extension, within which to file their intended petition. The action of the CA was in accordance with Section
4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Thus, as the original deadline of petitioner-spouses was April 18, 2000,
they had until May 3, 2000 to file their intended petition. Petitioner-spouses, however, filed the petition on
May 8, 2000. Petitioner-spouses even admit that their petition in the CA was filed five days after the
extended period. It is therefore clear that the CA simply applied the rules, while petitioner-spouses
concededly failed to observe the very same rules.

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 appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Contrary to the claim of petitioner-spouses that there was no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law other than this petition, the right recourse was to appeal to this Court
in the form of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or resolution is appeal. This
holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of
fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution. The existence and availability of the right of appeal
prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter remedy is the unavailability
of appeal.
Jangcan, Christine Joy S. JD – 2C
CERTIORARI NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A LOST APPEAL (RULE 65)

EBRENCIO F. INDOYON, JR. vs. CA

G.R. No. 193706
March 12, 2013
SERENO, CJ.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Ebrencio F. Indoyon, Jr., was a municipal treasurer. Upon examination of his cash and accounts,
the Commission on Audit through State Auditor discovered that petitioner had incurred a cash shortage in
the amount of ₱1,222,648.42.

The Bureau of Local Government Finance, Department of Finance (BLGF-DOF) found petitioner guilty of
"simple neglect of duty." Meanwhile, the Deputy Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty
of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the
service.

To enjoin the implementation of the Ombudsman’s Decision, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 43 with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before
the CA. The Petition was dismissed on the ground that it suffered not just one technical infirmity, but several
technical infirmities that violated various circulars and issuances of this Court. Petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration, praying for the relaxation of the procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice, was
denied by the CA. Hence this Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s Rule 43 Petition for
Review on Certiorari on the ground of noncompliance with the Rules of Court and Supreme Court circulars.

RULING:

No.

An appeal is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. Thus, an appeal may be availed of only
in the manner provided by law and the rules. Failure to follow procedural rules merits the dismissal of the
case, especially when the rules themselves expressly say so, as in the instant case. While the Court, in
certain cases, applies the policy of liberal construction, this policy may be invoked only in situations in
which there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but not when the application of the
policy results in the utter disregard of procedural rules, as in this case.

For a proper invocation of the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, one of the
essential requisites is that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. The proper remedy of petitioner should have been to file a petition for review on certiorari.
His failure to avail himself of that remedy within the reglementary period of 15 days was the reason he
filed, instead, the present special civil action. A special civil action provides for a longer period of 60 days
from notice of the assailed judgment, order or resolution. We note that the instant Petition was filed 35 days
after that notice, by which time petitioner had therefore lost his appeal under Rule 45.

Time and again, the Court ruled that Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal
a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.

By filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, petitioner therefore clearly availed himself of
the wrong remedy. Under Supreme Court Circular 2-90, an appeal taken to the Court or to the CA by a
wrong or an inappropriate mode merits outright dismissal. On this score alone, the instant Petition may be
dismissed.

There is no question that the CA was simply applying the rules laid down by the Court. In fact, petitioner
does not question the proper application of the technical rules by the CA. It is precisely for this reason that
he is merely invoking the liberal application of those rules. The Court also notes that not only one but
several rules have not been complied with.

The Petition is dismissed for being devoid of merit.