Lawyerly

GR No. 197953

2015-08-05

BRION, J.

A petition for certiorari is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction only 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 grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[30]

GR No. 197556

2015-03-25

WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL v. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The relaxation of procedural rules may be allowed only when there are exceptional circumstances to justify the same.[45] There should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.[46] Moreover, those who seek exemption from the application of a procedural rule have the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious reason warranting such departure.[47] In Philippine National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[48] we said: It is an accepted tenet that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules. (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 175723

2014-02-04

CITY OF MANILA v. CARIDAD H. GRECIA-CUERDO

PERALTA, J.

Nonetheless, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court has, before, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly (1) if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[18] Considering that the present petition was filed within the 15-day reglementary period for filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, that an error of judgment is averred, and because of the significance of the issue on jurisdiction, the Court deems it proper and justified to relax the rules and, thus, treat the instant petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari.

GR No. 178564

2014-01-15

INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

On October 13, 2000, respondent claimed that while he was disposing of the garbage in the incinerator room of the vessel, certain chemicals splashed all over his body because of an explosion.[5] He was sent to the Burns Unit of the Prince of Wales Hospital on the same day wherein he was found to have suffered deep burns. Eventually, upon his own request, respondent was sent home.[6]

GR No. 171428

2013-11-11

ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

LEONEN, J.

Contrary to respondent's imputation, the remedy contemplated by petitioner is clearly that of a Rule 45 Petition for Review. In Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank,[45] this Court made the distinction between a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari and a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari: Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. In Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, we explained the simple reason for the rule in this light: When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed x x x. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil action of certiorari.

GR No. 167174

2013-09-23

SPS. CARMELITO v. CA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

A Petition for Certiorari lies only to correct acts 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 parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."[80] "Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law."[81]

GR No. 174240

2013-03-20

SPS. LEHNER v. MENELIA CHUA

PERALTA, J.

Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for review on certiorari under the said Rule "shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment." Relative thereto, Section 2, Rule 52 of the same Rules provides that "[n]o second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained." Based on the abovementioned dates, the start of the 15-day period for the filing of this petition should have been reckoned from July 18, 2006, the time of petitioners' receipt of the CA Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration, and not on September 5, 2006, the date when they received the CA Resolution denying their Second Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, petitioners should have filed the instant petition not later than August 2, 2006. It is wrong for petitioners to reckon the 15-day period for the filing of the instant petition from the date when they received the copy of the CA Resolution denying their Second Motion for Reconsideration. Since a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed, then unavoidably, its filing did not toll the running of the period to file an appeal by certiorari.[17] Petitioners made a critical mistake in waiting for the CA to resolve their second motion for reconsideration before pursuing an appeal.

GR No. 172880

2010-08-11

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CEBU PRINTING

PERALTA, J.

In reversing its original ruling that CEPRI availed of wrong mode of appeal, the CA in its Amended Decision reasoned out that although the petition for certiorari was an incorrect remedy, it allowed the treatment of such petition as a petition for review based on earlier rulings of this Court. While it may be true that this Court, in various cases, has treated a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as a petition for review, it does not follow that the appellate courts should subscribe to those rulings as a general rule. In those decisions, certain exceptional circumstances were present which necessitated the relaxing of the rule. Highly instructive is this Court's ruling in Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank:[24]

GR No. 183027

2010-07-26

SPS. EDMUNDO AND LOURDES SARROSA v. WILLY O. DIZON

PERALTA, J.

In their petition, petitioners prayed for the annulment of the Order dated June 29, 2007 and the Decision dated August 22, 2007 of the RTC of Para×¡aque City, Branch 257 in LRC Case No. 05-0047. However, the petition failed to state when petitioners received the RTC Order dated June 29, 2007. Hence, the Court of Appeals could not determine whether the petition for certiorari was filed on time. Under Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the requirements stated therein, such as the statement of material dates, is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition.[23] Being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the special civil action of certiorari must strictly observe the rule laid down by law.[24]

GR No. 157449

2010-04-06

NEMESIO GOCO v. CA

BRION, J.

The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact - a mistake of judgment - appeal is the remedy.[17] [Emphasis supplied.]

GR No. 151932

2009-08-19

HENRY CHING TIU v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

PERALTA, J.

The phrase without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. Excess of jurisdiction occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority; or results when an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not authorized, and is invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[35]

GR No. 166734

2009-07-03

MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

PERALTA, J.

In Alba v. Court of Appeals[51] and Linzag v. Court of Appeals,[52] it was held that a party aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals in a petition filed with it for annulment of judgment, final order or resolution is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but rather an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised. A petition for certiorari is, like a petition for annulment, a remedy of last resort and must be availed of only when an appeal or any other adequate, plain or speedy remedy may no longer be pursued in the ordinary course of law.[53] A remedy is said to be plain, speedy and adequate when it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[54]

GR No. 166734

2009-07-03

MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

PERALTA, J.

Be that as it may, while an appeal would have been the proper remedy under the premises, it is nevertheless glaring from the records that such remedy was no longer viable. Petitioner has conceded that, as shown by the records, it received the Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying its motion for reconsideration on September 21, 2004.[57] An appeal could have been taken within the prescribed period of fifteen days thereafter, but petitioner did not avail of the same. Perhaps realizing that it could no longer make use of that remedy, it instead filed the instant petition in an effort to secure a favorable ruling. It can only be surmised that the present recourse is a mere attempt, futile as it is, to substitute a lost right to appeal. On this score, Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank[58] is instructive, to wit:The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. Time and again this Court has reminded members of the bench and bar that the special civil action of Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal where the latter remedy is available; especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.

	GR No. 197953 2015-08-05	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
A petition for certiorari is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction only 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 grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[30]
	GR No. 197556 2015-03-25	WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL v. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The relaxation of procedural rules may be allowed only when there are exceptional circumstances to justify the same.[45] There should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.[46] Moreover, those who seek exemption from the application of a procedural rule have the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious reason warranting such departure.[47] In Philippine National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[48] we said: It is an accepted tenet that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 175723 2014-02-04	CITY OF MANILA v. CARIDAD H. GRECIA-CUERDO PERALTA, J.
Nonetheless, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court has, before, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly (1) if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[18] Considering that the present petition was filed within the 15-day reglementary period for filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, that an error of judgment is averred, and because of the significance of the issue on jurisdiction, the Court deems it proper and justified to relax the rules and, thus, treat the instant petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari.
	GR No. 178564 2014-01-15	INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On October 13, 2000, respondent claimed that while he was disposing of the garbage in the incinerator room of the vessel, certain chemicals splashed all over his body because of an explosion.[5] He was sent to the Burns Unit of the Prince of Wales Hospital on the same day wherein he was found to have suffered deep burns. Eventually, upon his own request, respondent was sent home.[6]
	GR No. 171428 2013-11-11	ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
Contrary to respondent's imputation, the remedy contemplated by petitioner is clearly that of a Rule 45 Petition for Review. In Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank,[45] this Court made the distinction between a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari and a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari: Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. In Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, we explained the simple reason for the rule in this light: When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed x x x. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil action of certiorari.
	GR No. 167174 2013-09-23	SPS. CARMELITO v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
A Petition for Certiorari lies only to correct acts 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 parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."[80] "Grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of writs of preliminary injunction implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal aversion amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law."[81]
	GR No. 174240 2013-03-20	SPS. LEHNER v. MENELIA CHUA PERALTA, J.
Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for review on certiorari under the said Rule "shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment." Relative thereto, Section 2, Rule 52 of the same Rules provides that "[n]o second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained." Based on the abovementioned dates, the start of the 15-day period for the filing of this petition should have been reckoned from July 18, 2006, the time of petitioners' receipt of the CA Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration, and not on September 5, 2006, the date when they received the CA Resolution denying their Second Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, petitioners should have filed the instant petition not later than August 2, 2006. It is wrong for petitioners to reckon the 15-day period for the filing of the instant petition from the date when they received the copy of the CA Resolution denying their Second Motion for Reconsideration. Since a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed, then unavoidably, its filing did not toll the running of the period to file an appeal by certiorari.[17] Petitioners made a critical mistake in waiting for the CA to resolve their second motion for reconsideration before pursuing an appeal.
	GR No. 172880 2010-08-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CEBU PRINTING PERALTA, J.
In reversing its original ruling that CEPRI availed of wrong mode of appeal, the CA in its Amended Decision reasoned out that although the petition for certiorari was an incorrect remedy, it allowed the treatment of such petition as a petition for review based on earlier rulings of this Court. While it may be true that this Court, in various cases, has treated a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as a petition for review, it does not follow that the appellate courts should subscribe to those rulings as a general rule. In those decisions, certain exceptional circumstances were present which necessitated the relaxing of the rule. Highly instructive is this Court's ruling in Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank:[24]
	GR No. 183027 2010-07-26	SPS. EDMUNDO AND LOURDES SARROSA v. WILLY O. DIZON PERALTA, J.
In their petition, petitioners prayed for the annulment of the Order dated June 29, 2007 and the Decision dated August 22, 2007 of the RTC of Para×¡aque City, Branch 257 in LRC Case No. 05-0047. However, the petition failed to state when petitioners received the RTC Order dated June 29, 2007. Hence, the Court of Appeals could not determine whether the petition for certiorari was filed on time. Under Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the requirements stated therein, such as the statement of material dates, is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition.[23] Being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the special civil action of certiorari must strictly observe the rule laid down by law.[24]
	GR No. 157449 2010-04-06	NEMESIO GOCO v. CA BRION, J.
The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact - a mistake of judgment - appeal is the remedy.[17] [Emphasis supplied.]
	GR No. 151932 2009-08-19	HENRY CHING TIU v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS PERALTA, J.
The phrase without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. Excess of jurisdiction occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority; or results when an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not authorized, and is invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[35]
	GR No. 166734 2009-07-03	MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA PERALTA, J.
In Alba v. Court of Appeals[51] and Linzag v. Court of Appeals,[52] it was held that a party aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals in a petition filed with it for annulment of judgment, final order or resolution is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but rather an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised. A petition for certiorari is, like a petition for annulment, a remedy of last resort and must be availed of only when an appeal or any other adequate, plain or speedy remedy may no longer be pursued in the ordinary course of law.[53] A remedy is said to be plain, speedy and adequate when it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[54]
	GR No. 166734 2009-07-03	MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA PERALTA, J.
Be that as it may, while an appeal would have been the proper remedy under the premises, it is nevertheless glaring from the records that such remedy was no longer viable. Petitioner has conceded that, as shown by the records, it received the Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying its motion for reconsideration on September 21, 2004.[57] An appeal could have been taken within the prescribed period of fifteen days thereafter, but petitioner did not avail of the same. Perhaps realizing that it could no longer make use of that remedy, it instead filed the instant petition in an effort to secure a favorable ruling. It can only be surmised that the present recourse is a mere attempt, futile as it is, to substitute a lost right to appeal. On this score, Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank[58] is instructive, to wit:The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. Time and again this Court has reminded members of the bench and bar that the special civil action of Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal where the latter remedy is available; especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies.

ALFREDO TAGLE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK