Certiorari as an Improper Substitute for Appeal: Jurisdictional Errors in Philippine Law

The Supreme Court has long held that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not a substitute for a lost appeal. In Rigor v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 167400, June 30, 2006), the Court dismissed a petition for certiorari outright, reiterating that errors of judgment—as opposed to errors of jurisdiction—must be corrected through the ordinary remedy of appeal, not through the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

The Case: A Right-of-Way Dispute

The petitioners filed a complaint for injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City. They sought to prevent the private respondent from constructing a gate and fencing her property, which would allegedly deny them access to and egress from their own property through an alleged right-of-way.

The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court's decision on appeal by the private respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the issues and evidence.

The Issue: Jurisdictional Error vs. Error of Judgment

The central question was whether the petitioners could avail of certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the CA's decision reversing the RTC ruling.

The Supreme Court answered in the negative.

The Ruling: Certiorari Cannot Substitute for Appeal

The Court dismissed the petition outright, holding that the petitioners' remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45, not certiorari under Rule 65.

Certiorari is limited to jurisdictional errors. Under Section 1, Rule 65, certiorari lies only when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petitioners did not allege any jurisdictional flaw in the CA's handling of the appeal. Their assault was directed at the CA's appreciation of the issues and evidence—an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction.

Errors of judgment are correctible only by appeal. As long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any supposed error committed in the exercise thereof amounts to nothing more than an error of judgment, reviewable and correctible only by a timely appeal. The CA had jurisdiction over the appeal, and the petitioners never questioned that competence.

Appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are not alternative or successive. Where an appeal is available, certiorari cannot be availed of. Here, the CA's decision was a final disposition on the merits, not an interlocutory order. The proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45, which raises only questions of law.

The appeal was already lost. Even if the Court were to treat the petition liberally as one for review under Rule 45, it would still fail. The petitioners received the CA resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on January 21, 2005, but filed their petition only on March 31, 2005—about 67 days later. Section 2, Rule 45 requires filing within 15 days from notice of the denial. The appeal period had long expired.

Practical Takeaways

• Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a fallback remedy. It cannot be used to make up for the loss, through negligence or oversight, of the right to appeal.
• Distinguish errors of jurisdiction from errors of judgment. If a court acts within its jurisdiction, its mistakes in appreciating evidence or applying the law are errors of judgment, correctible only by appeal.
• Observe the 15-day period for Rule 45 petitions. The timely perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Missing the deadline is fatal.
• Appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. A party cannot choose certiorari simply because it seems more convenient or because the appeal period has lapsed.
• Final judgments must be respected. Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. The Court will not tolerate maneuvers designed to delay the enforcement of a final decision.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.