Remedial Law

Petition for Certiorari, Distinctions between Rule 45 and 65, Doctrine of Procedural Void

The following are cases which explain the Distinctions between Rule 45 and 65

 

GO vs. CA

G.R. No. 128954. October 8, 1998

Where the trial court abuses its discretion by indefinitely suspending summary proceedings involving ejectment cases, a petition for certiorari may be entertained by the proper court to correct the blunder. In the interest of justice and in view of the procedural void on the subject, an appeal may be treated as a petition for certiorari for this purpose and only in this instance, pro hac vice.

Nuñez vs. GSIS FAMILY BANK

G.R. No. 163988 November 17, 2005

At the outset, clarification on petitioners mode of appeal is in order. Petitioners and counsel confuse their petition as one Petition for Review under Rule 45 with a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. For while they treat it as one for Review on Certiorari, they manifest that it is filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to Rule 45 of the New Rules of Court.

In Ligon v. Court of Appeals where the therein petitioner described her petition as an appeal under Rule 45 and at the same time as a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, this Court, in frowning over what it described as a chimera, reiterated that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative nor successive.

 

To be sure, the distinctions between Rules 45 and 65 are far and wide. However, the most apparent is that errors of jurisdiction are best reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule  65 while errors of judgment can only be corrected by appeal in a petition for review under Rule 45.

This Court, however, in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice may treat a petition for certiorari as having filed under Rule 45, more so if the same was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.

The records show that the petition was filed on time both under Rules 45 and 65. Following Delsan Transport, the petition, stripped of allegations of grave abuse of discretion, actually avers errors of judgment which are the subject of a petition for review.

 

RIGOR vs. CA, TENTH DIVISION

G.R. No. 167400             June 30, 2006

We RESOLVE to dismiss the petition outright for being an improper remedy.

In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, judicial review is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Rule 65 cannot be more explicit on this point. It reads:

Section.1. 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 its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or 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.

xxx xxx xxx

For a writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only prove that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. He must also show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against what he perceives to be a legitimate grievance. A recourse affording prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or tribunal is considered “plain, speedy and adequate” remedy.

 

But errors of judgment not relating to jurisdiction are, as a rule, correctable only by appeal, not by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. For, as long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any supposed error committed in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable and may be corrected by a timely appeal.

With the view we take of this case, petitioners interposed the present special civil action of certiorari as an afterthought. They did so not because it is the speedy and adequate remedy, but to make up for the loss, through sheer negligence or oversight, of the right of ordinary appeal. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that the presence of a speedy and adequate remedy forbids recourse to certiorari under Rule 65. Stated a bit differently, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available. Here, there can be no denying the fact that the challenged decision and resolution of the CA were not mere interlocutory orders but a final disposition on the merits of the main case. Under the circumstances, petitioners’ remedy was by way of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, under which only questions of law may be raised.

For obvious reason, the Rules precludes recourse to the special civil action of certiorari if appeal by way of a petition for review is available, as the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.

At any rate, an appeal by petition for review under Rule 45, assuming its availability, is now lost for the petitioners. An appeal is a mere statutory right to be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law, and its timely perfection within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

 

RIVIERA FILIPINA, INC.  vs. CA

G.R. No. 117355. April 5, 2002

At the outset, we note that, while Riviera alleges that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the instant petition is, as it should be, treated as a petition for review under Rule 45 and not as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, now the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The distinctions between Rule 45 and 65 are far and wide, the most notable of which is that errors of jurisdiction are best reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, while errors of judgment are correctible only by appeal in a petition for review under Rule 45.  The rationale for the distinction is simple. 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. This cannot be allowed. The administration of justice would not countenance such a rule. Thus, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original special civil action of certiorari. Appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bar, is by way of a petition for review under Rule 45.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.