Negligence and the Binding Nature of Counsel's Errors: Understanding the Basuel v. FFIB Ruling

The Supreme Court's ruling in Basuel v. FFIB serves as a critical reminder that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The case underscores the principle that errors of judgment, even those arising from counsel's negligence, are generally correctable only through appeal, not through the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

The Facts of the Case

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

After securing a favorable judgment from the trial court, the petitioners experienced a reversal when the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision. Instead of filing a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the petitioners properly availed of the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the CA's decision, or whether they should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright for being an improper remedy. The Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petitioners' assault on the CA's decision was not anchored on jurisdictional flaws but on their assumption that the CA erred in its appreciation of the issues and evidence.

The Court emphasized that errors of judgment not relating to jurisdiction are correctable only by appeal, not by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. 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 correctable by a timely appeal.

The Court also noted that the petitioners filed their petition about 67 days from notice of the CA's resolution, far beyond the 15-day period provided under Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Even on the most liberal view of construing the petition as one for review under Rule 45, the recourse must still fail.

Practical Takeaways

• Certiorari is not a substitute for appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. If an appeal is available, certiorari cannot be availed of.

• Errors of judgment vs. errors of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment, even if serious, are correctable only through appeal. Certiorari lies only for errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Counsel's negligence is binding on clients. The loss of the right to appeal due to counsel's negligence or oversight cannot be remedied by resorting to certiorari as an afterthought.

• Timely filing is mandatory. The 15-day period for filing a petition for review under Rule 45 is mandatory and jurisdictional. Missing this deadline can be fatal to a case.

• Litigation must end. Once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict through clever maneuvers by the unsporting loser.

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