Lawyerly

GR No. 169533

2013-03-20

BERSAMIN, J.

At the outset, we should observe that the petitioner has adopted the wrong remedy in assailing the CA's affirmance of his conviction. His proper recourse from the affirmance of his conviction was an appeal taken in due course. Hence, he should have filed a petition for review on certiorari. Instead, he wrongly brought a petition for certiorari. We explained why in People v. Court of Appeals:[12]

GR No. 180711

2010-06-22

RUDOLFO I. BELUSO v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

In People v. Court of Appeals,[18] the Court expounded, thus: As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x [19]

GR No. 157370

2007-06-08

RAMIL P. ORTIZ v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It should be emphasized that the remedy of certiorari or prohibition is limited to the correction of errors of jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Court of Appeals,[4] the Court expounded on the function of the remedy of certiorari in this wise: As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x [5] (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the arguments in the petition reveal that what petitioner is attacking is the correctness or legal soundness of the conclusion reached by the CA. Indeed, petitioner alleges that the CA failed to take his arguments or evidence into consideration, but a reading of the CA Resolutions in question shows that it squarely addressed the essential arguments raised by petitioner. In the Resolution dated February 17, 2003, the CA fully discussed the issue of whether or not private respondent's postal address of No. 3863 E. Vallejo, Santol, Sta. Mesa, Manila may be considered as his actual residence. In arriving at its conclusion, the CA is presumed to have taken into consideration all the arguments and evidence submitted by petitioner, as official duty is presumed to have been regularly performed in the absence of credible proof to the contrary.[6] In this case, there is a dearth of evidence to overturn such presumption. Thus, on the point alone that the issues presented by petitioner are not proper subjects of an action for certiorari or prohibition, the petition is already clearly dismissible.

GR NO. 172278

2007-03-29

LYDIA R. PAGADUAN v. COMELEC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Moreover, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the issue of whether or not the COMELEC made the proper or correct rulings cannot be the subject of an action for certiorari. In People v. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court expounded on the function of the remedy of certiorari as follows:As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x [13] (Emphasis supplied)

GR NO. 147525

2007-02-26

BONIFACIO ESPINOZA v. PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR OF PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION OFFICE OF PAMPANGA

CORONA, J.

Lastly, on the fourth assignment of error, it cannot be overemphasized that only errors of jurisdiction may be reviewed by the CA in a petition for certiorari. "Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari."[17]

GR NO. 160061

2006-10-11

ENGINEER LEONARDO C. LEYALEY v. COMELEC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Note, further, that the function of the remedy of certiorari is very limited. In People v. Court of Appeals,[5] the Court expounded thus: As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x[6] (Emphasis supplied) The issues raised in the case at bar involve only possible errors of judgment, questioning the correctness of the COMELEC's rulings on whether paquiao or takay projects that were awarded through public bidding should be exempted from the election ban; and whether the exemption granted by the COMELEC-CAR did not cover the ban on the release, disbursement or expenditure of public funds. Thus, since it is not the jurisdiction of the COMELEC that is being questioned, the case is not a proper subject of certiorari proceedings.

GR NO. 164561

2006-08-30

CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The special civil action for Certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 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.[16]

GR NO. 154235-36

2006-08-16

ALFREDO O. ESTRERA v. LEONARDO DEMECILLO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioner must be reminded of the function of the remedy of certiorari. In People v. Court of Appeals,[14] the Court expounded thus:As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x[15] (Emphasis supplied)

GR NO. 170702

2006-06-16

INGATUN G. ISTARUL v. COMELEC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It is clear from the discussion in the petition that what are assigned as errors of the COMELEC 1st Division and En Banc - i.e., that the COMELEC erred in wantonly disregarding the jurisprudential rule on execution pending appeal; in ignoring that rule that, as between two presumptive winners, the proclamation made by the court prevails over that of the board of canvassers; in not considering the fact that private respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration before the trial court; and in not considering the issues raised by petitioner in his pleadings - are merely alleged errors of judgment as they question the wisdom and legal soundness of the COMELEC's resolutions and not the jurisdiction of said body. In People v. Court of Appeals,[9] the Court expounded on the function of the remedy of certiorari as follows: As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x [10] (Emphasis supplied) Evidently, since the issues raised in this petition merely question the correctness of the COMELEC's rulings, petitioner cannot avail of the writ of certiorari.

GR NOS. 168188-89

2006-06-16

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Section 21, Article III of the Constitution provides that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." The rule is that a judgment acquitting the accused is final and immediately executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy.[22] Such acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether it happens at the trial court or on appeal at the CA.[23] Thus, the State is proscribed from appealing the judgment of acquittal of the accused to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

	GR No. 169533 2013-03-20	GEORGE BONGALON v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
At the outset, we should observe that the petitioner has adopted the wrong remedy in assailing the CA's affirmance of his conviction. His proper recourse from the affirmance of his conviction was an appeal taken in due course. Hence, he should have filed a petition for review on certiorari. Instead, he wrongly brought a petition for certiorari. We explained why in People v. Court of Appeals:[12]
	GR No. 180711 2010-06-22	RUDOLFO I. BELUSO v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
In People v. Court of Appeals,[18] the Court expounded, thus: As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x [19]
	GR No. 157370 2007-06-08	RAMIL P. ORTIZ v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It should be emphasized that the remedy of certiorari or prohibition is limited to the correction of errors of jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Court of Appeals,[4] the Court expounded on the function of the remedy of certiorari in this wise: As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x [5] (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the arguments in the petition reveal that what petitioner is attacking is the correctness or legal soundness of the conclusion reached by the CA. Indeed, petitioner alleges that the CA failed to take his arguments or evidence into consideration, but a reading of the CA Resolutions in question shows that it squarely addressed the essential arguments raised by petitioner. In the Resolution dated February 17, 2003, the CA fully discussed the issue of whether or not private respondent's postal address of No. 3863 E. Vallejo, Santol, Sta. Mesa, Manila may be considered as his actual residence. In arriving at its conclusion, the CA is presumed to have taken into consideration all the arguments and evidence submitted by petitioner, as official duty is presumed to have been regularly performed in the absence of credible proof to the contrary.[6] In this case, there is a dearth of evidence to overturn such presumption. Thus, on the point alone that the issues presented by petitioner are not proper subjects of an action for certiorari or prohibition, the petition is already clearly dismissible.
	GR NO. 172278 2007-03-29	LYDIA R. PAGADUAN v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the issue of whether or not the COMELEC made the proper or correct rulings cannot be the subject of an action for certiorari. In People v. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court expounded on the function of the remedy of certiorari as follows:As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x [13] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 147525 2007-02-26	BONIFACIO ESPINOZA v. PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR OF PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION OFFICE OF PAMPANGA CORONA, J.
Lastly, on the fourth assignment of error, it cannot be overemphasized that only errors of jurisdiction may be reviewed by the CA in a petition for certiorari. "Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari."[17]
	GR NO. 160061 2006-10-11	ENGINEER LEONARDO C. LEYALEY v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Note, further, that the function of the remedy of certiorari is very limited. In People v. Court of Appeals,[5] the Court expounded thus: As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x[6] (Emphasis supplied) The issues raised in the case at bar involve only possible errors of judgment, questioning the correctness of the COMELEC's rulings on whether paquiao or takay projects that were awarded through public bidding should be exempted from the election ban; and whether the exemption granted by the COMELEC-CAR did not cover the ban on the release, disbursement or expenditure of public funds. Thus, since it is not the jurisdiction of the COMELEC that is being questioned, the case is not a proper subject of certiorari proceedings.
	GR NO. 164561 2006-08-30	CATHAY PACIFIC STEEL CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The special civil action for Certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 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.[16]
	GR NO. 154235-36 2006-08-16	ALFREDO O. ESTRERA v. LEONARDO DEMECILLO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner must be reminded of the function of the remedy of certiorari. In People v. Court of Appeals,[14] the Court expounded thus:As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x[15] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR NO. 170702 2006-06-16	INGATUN G. ISTARUL v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is clear from the discussion in the petition that what are assigned as errors of the COMELEC 1st Division and En Banc - i.e., that the COMELEC erred in wantonly disregarding the jurisprudential rule on execution pending appeal; in ignoring that rule that, as between two presumptive winners, the proclamation made by the court prevails over that of the board of canvassers; in not considering the fact that private respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration before the trial court; and in not considering the issues raised by petitioner in his pleadings - are merely alleged errors of judgment as they question the wisdom and legal soundness of the COMELEC's resolutions and not the jurisdiction of said body. In People v. Court of Appeals,[9] the Court expounded on the function of the remedy of certiorari as follows: As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d'etre for the rule is 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. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x [10] (Emphasis supplied) Evidently, since the issues raised in this petition merely question the correctness of the COMELEC's rulings, petitioner cannot avail of the writ of certiorari.
	GR NOS. 168188-89 2006-06-16	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
Section 21, Article III of the Constitution provides that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." The rule is that a judgment acquitting the accused is final and immediately executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy.[22] Such acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether it happens at the trial court or on appeal at the CA.[23] Thus, the State is proscribed from appealing the judgment of acquittal of the accused to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

PEOPLE v. CA