You are on page 1of 1

Michael Evans C Pastor September 10, 2013

Provisional Remedies
7:30-8:30 PM TuTh LE107
Atty. Roland Pondoc, CPA

Reaction Paper
On
RULE 65: POSING IMPEDIMENTS O A STREAMLINED JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which is Petition for Certiorari is a special civil
action which the principal function is to keep an inferior court or tribunal under its
jurisdiction. It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction where the act
complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess
of jurisdiction. Such function of the said Rule is very important as it gives the Highest
Court of the land, the Supreme Court, to review the acts of its lower courts which did
not serve justice as such acts are not in the jurisdiction of the said court or that they
manifest abuse of discretion.

It can therefore be gleaned from the discussion of Rita Linda V Jimeno that
the main aim and purpose of Rule 65 is to provide last resort for party litigants who
were manifestly deprived of their right just because the court who tried their case has
actually no jurisdiction of that such court fails to use reasonable discretion in
rendering its judgements or in actually trying the case.

The negative part comes in the use of the rule to delay execution of
judgements and even to deny justice. It is presented by the discussion that the
seemingly broad scope of the Rule 65 allows the parties to question the act of any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions by alleging
simply that such act was performed without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal,
nor any plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. This was
abused by the legal practitioners and used for delaying a case, or sometimes,
defeating the ends of justice. This was evidenced by the vast number of petition for
certiorari cases under Rules 65 which was filed in Supreme Court and that much of it
were dismissed only after an average period of six to eight years.

By this reason, it is hereby believed that the recommendation in the
discussion in modifying the guidelines on filing of certiorari under Rule 65 should be
upheld. By sustaining the hierarchy of courts which limits the filing of certiorari
directly to Supreme Court will surely lighten the burden received by Supreme Court
from numerous certiorari cases. This will eventually leads to enough time for the
Supreme Court to deal with other cases that were lodged to that court. Delaying
tactics of other legal practitioners will be limited with great degree, if not fully
prohibited. This will not actually prohibit the filing of the said special civil action. It can
still be filed, but not necessarily directly with the Supreme Court but to the next
higher Court to that which rendered the judgement. Summing up these good effects,
we can therefore say that Rule 65 cannot anymore defeat the ends of justice instead
it will serve its purpose of giving justice to those who rightfully deserve it.