Certiorari Research

An extraordinary remedy, a petition for certiorari is only available and
restrictively in truly exceptional cases. The sole office of the writ of certiorari
is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Odango vs.
NLRC, G.R. No. 147420, June 10, 2004)
The general rule is that certiorari does not lie to review errors of judgment of the trial court, as well as
that of a quasi-judicial tribunal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine
and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. 39 Such questions are
proper only in an ordinary appeal either by writ of error from the judgment or final order of the trial
court, or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court from a decision or final order of a
quasi-judicial body. Indeed, a certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character. Adam
Garcia vs NLRc, februray 7, 2005, 147247
G.R. No. L-23537 March 31, 1965
ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, DEMOCRITO T. MENDOZA and CECILIO T. SENO, petitioners,

vs.
THE HON. JUDGE MODESTO R. RAMOLETE of the Court of First Instance of Cebu,
KATIPUNAN LUMBER CO., INC., and ROQUE ABELLAR, respondents.
When the court has jurisdiction over or a subject matter, the orders or decisions upon all questions
pertaining to the cause are orders or decisions within its jurisdiction and, however irregular or
erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by certiorari (Gala v. Cui and Rodriguez, 23 Phil. 522;
Galang v. Endencia, 73 Phil. 399; Villa-Rey Transit v. Bello, G.R. No. L-21399, Jan. 31, 1964).
G.R. No. 156067 August 11, 2004
MADRIGAL TRANSPORT, INC., petitioner,

vs.
LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION; MACONDRAY AND COMPANY, INC.; and LUIS P.
LORENZO JR., respondents.
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose,
as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. 29
For certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) the writ is directed against a
tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board
or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.30
"Without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority. 31 There is "excess of
jurisdiction" when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority. 32 "Grave
abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent
to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other words, 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.33
As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not
errors of judgment.34 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. 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 survive
such a rule. 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."35
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. 36 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.37 Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error
of law or fact -- a mistake of judgment -- appeal is the remedy. 38
As to the Manner of Filing. Over an appeal, the CA exercises its appellate jurisdiction and power of
review. Over a certiorari, the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance with its power of
control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts. 39 An appeal is thus a continuation of
the original suit, while a petition for certiorari is an original and independent action that was not part
of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained of. 40 The parties to
an appeal are the original parties to the action. In contrast, the parties to a petition for certiorari are
the aggrieved party (who thereby becomes the petitioner) against the lower court or quasi-judicial
agency, and the prevailing parties (the public and the private respondents, respectively). 41
As to the Subject Matter. Only judgments or final orders and those that the Rules of Court so
declare are appealable.42 Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be
directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment; or
where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy. 43
As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary appeals should be filed within fifteen days from the notice of
judgment or final order appealed from.44 Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant must
file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty days from the said notice of judgment or
final order.45 A petition for review should be filed and served within fifteen days from the notice of
denial of the decision, or of the petitioner’s timely filed motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration.46 In an appeal by certiorari, the petition should be filed also within fifteen days from
the notice of judgment or final order, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or motion
for reconsideration.47
On the other hand, a petition for certiorari should be filed not later than sixty days from the notice of
judgment, order, or resolution.48 If a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration was timely
filed, the period shall be counted from the denial of the motion. 49
As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is generally
required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to
correct the alleged errors. Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly
available under the law.50 Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment or final order. 51
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 156893 June 21, 2005
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., NATALE DI COSMO, RENE HORILLENO, and BENITO
A. DE LEON, petitioners,
vs.
GOMERSENDO P. DANIEL, respondent.
Settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari does not normally include an inquiry into the
correctness of the NLRC’s evaluation of the evidence, from which the labor tribunal bases its
findings and conclusions.13 Thus, the appellate court was limited to determining whether the tribunal
had gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the evidence was insufficient to prove a just or
authorized cause for dismissal.
By "grave abuse of discretion" is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is
equivalent to an excess or a lack of jurisdiction; an abuse so patent and so gross as to amount to an
invasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law; or an arbitrary or
despotic exercise of power as a result of passion or hostility. 14
Consistent with the above principles, the CA correctly disregarded the new evidence

Certiorari Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Certiorari Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Certiorari Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An extraordinary remedy, a petition for certiorari is only available and

G.R. No. L-23537 March 31, 1965

ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, DEMOCRITO T. MENDOZA and CECILIO T. SENO, petitioners,

G.R. No. 156067 August 11, 2004

MADRIGAL TRANSPORT, INC., petitioner,

G.R. No. 156893 June 21, 2005

You might also like