You are on page 1of 15

G.R. No.

155306 August 28, 2013
MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG STAYFAST PHILS., INC., PETITIONER,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, STAYFAST PHILIPPINES, INC./ MARIA
ALMEIDA, RESPONDENTS
The petition fails for many reasons.
First, this petition for certiorari is a wrong remedy.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that may be
resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.25 Contrary to petitioner’s claim in the Jurisdictional Facts portion of its petition that
there was no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
other than this petition for certiorari, the right recourse was to appeal to this Court in the form of a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Section 1 of which provides:
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. – A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a
judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax
Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an application for
a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law,
which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified
motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.
For purposes of appeal, the Decision dated July 1, 2002 of the Court of Appeals was a final
judgment as it denied due course to, and dismissed, the petition. Thus, the Decision disposed of the
petition of petitioner in a manner that left nothing more to be done by the Court of Appeals in respect
to the said case. Thus, petitioner should have filed an appeal by petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in this Court. Where the rules prescribe a
particular remedy for the vindication of rights, such remedy should be availed of.
The proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or resolution is appeal.
This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in
the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution. The existence and availability
of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter
remedy is that there should be no appeal.26
Petitioner cannot mask its failure to file an appeal by petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court by the mere expedient of conjuring grave abuse of discretion to avail of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65. The error of petitioner becomes more manifest in light of the following
pronouncement in Balayan v. Acorda27:
It bears emphasis that the special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy
of last recourse. The Court has often reminded members of the bench and bar that this extraordinary
action lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. It cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the
availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal. Where an
appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of
discretion. x x x. (Citations omitted.)
Moreover, certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is
available but was lost through fault or negligence.28 In this case, petitioner received the Decision
dated July 1, 2002 on August 2, 2002 and, under the rules,29 had until August 19, 2002 to file an
appeal by way of a petition for review in this Court. Petitioner let this period lapse without filing an
appeal and, instead, filed this petition for certiorari on October 1, 2002.

" Furthermore. Thus. x x x. petitioner essentially questioned the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.33 This is so because "grave abuse of discretion" is well-defined and not an amorphous concept that may easily be manipulated to suit one’s purpose. Fourth. arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion and hostility. that the said officers and members were unlawfully dismissed from employment and are therefore entitled to . 2002 of the Court of Appeals was patent and gross that would warrant striking it down through a petition for certiorari.31 While there are well recognized exceptions to this rule.Second. In this connection. petitioner failed in its duty to demonstrate with definiteness the grave abuse of discretion that would justify the proper availment of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. petitioner was not able to establish its allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Third. Judge Reyes-Carpio34 is instructive: The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. As a general rule. a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the availment of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. Yu v. even assuming that a petition for certiorari is the correct remedy in this case.32 this petition is not covered by any of those exceptions.30 The filing of a motion for reconsideration before resort to certiorari will lie is intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case. (Citations omitted. Where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges grave abuse of discretion. No argument was advanced to show that the Court of Appeals exercised its judgment capriciously. nowhere in the petition did petitioner show that the issuance of the Decision dated July 1. Nor did petitioner offer any compelling reason to warrant a deviation from the rule. petitioner reiterated its position that respondent company and its General Manager committed discriminatory acts against petitioner’s members which constituted unfair labor practice. Instead. that the termination of employment of petitioner’s officers and members was a case of union-busting and unlawful lockout.35 petitioner failed to substantiate its imputation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. Aside from a general statement in the Jurisdictional Facts portion of the petition and the sweeping allegation of grave abuse of discretion in the general enumeration of the grounds of the petition." From the foregoing definition. the petitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious. which had been already rejected both by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Petitioner did not even discuss how or why the conclusions of the Court of Appeals were made with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner cannot properly do that in a petition for certiorari. In particular. The instant petition for certiorari is therefore fatally defective.) In this case. whimsically. petitioner limited its discussion on its version of the case. arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals was not given any opportunity either to rectify whatever error it may have made or to address the ascription and aspersion of grave abuse of discretion thrown at it by petitioner." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. whimsical. or to act at all in contemplation of law. the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void. petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of a prior motion for reconsideration. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 1âwphi 1 Petitioner used the Discussion/Arguments portion of its petition to refute the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter which was upheld by the NLRC. and.

there is an abundance of reasons. the Court of Appeals even reviewed the rationale of the Labor Arbiter’s decision and was convinced that there was justifiable reason for the NLRC to uphold the same. but even finality.40 That ruling is based on established case law. both procedural and substantive.38 Romy’s Freight Service v. its petition for certiorari crumbles in view of the identical findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC which were further upheld by the Court of Appeals. However. In sum. plus damages and attorney’s fees. both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC held that there was no sufficient proof of respondent company’s alleged discriminatory acts. the petition is hereby DISMISSED. even on the merits. it is settled that questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari. Castro39 explains the rationale of this rule: The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. 1997 was in violation of respondent company’s rules.) Fifth. Moreover. Petitioner’s case rests on the alleged discriminatory acts of respondent company against petitioner’s officers and members. but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that findings of fact made by Labor Arbiters and affirmed by the NLRC are not only entitled to great respect. However.37 Only established or admitted facts can be considered.36 For petitioner to question the identical findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC is to raise a question of fact. which resulted in the termination of their employment. the case of petitioner has no leg to stand on. . The phrase ‘grave abuse of discretion’ has a precise meaning in law. more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor of law are entertained." It does not encompass an error of law.41 Furthermore.44 The Court of Appeals ruled that the said findings were supported by substantial evidence. or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility.43 Thus. In contrast. in arriving at the said ruling. which are all fatal to petitioner’s cause. the instant petition for certiorari suffers from an acute scarcity of legal and factual support. nor could it be considered wrong. SO ORDERED. The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. and petitioner’s officers and members ignored the opportunity given by respondent company for them to explain their misconduct. Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties’ respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative weight.reinstatement with full backwages. WHEREFORE. considering that petitioner basically presented an issue of fact. (Citations omitted. the established facts as found by the NLRC are as follows: the "sit-down strike" made by petitioner’s officers and members on July 21.42 This Court finds no compelling reason to rule otherwise. petitioner’s unfair labor practice.45 This Court finds that such ruling of the appellate court is not grave abuse of discretion. union-busting and unlawful lockout claims do not hold water. denoting abuse of discretion "too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty. or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law. Sixth. and are considered binding if the same are supported by substantial evidence.

Petitioner Alfredo filed the instant petition designating it in both the caption and the body as one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. ALFREDO TAGLE. and HERMINIA V. J. render a judgment annulling or modifying the proceedings before the RTC and the Court of Appeals. this Petition for Certiorari with Prohibition filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. versus . Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO. Acting Presiding Judge. and after due hearing.[17] He thus prays for this Court to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the writ of possession of the subject property. EQUITABLE PCI BANK Chairperson. Promulgated: Respondents. April 22. JJ. 172299 Petitioner. City of Malolos. G. Regional Trial Court-Branch 82. PASAMBA. (Formerly Philippine AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ.[16] He argues: That from the records of the mortgage.[18] .R. No. . and the HONORABLE NACHURA. Bulacan. Commercial International Bank) CHICO-NAZARIO. with costs.. 2008 x-----------------------------------------------x Hence. the same was not constituted before or after the constitution of the family home by the petitioner and as such the Honorable Court of Appeals has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in the proceedings complained of. He anchors the present petition on the sole issue of whether or not the subject property subject of the mortgage being a family home is exempt from foreclosure of mortgage. REYES.

SP No. (c) the present petition lacks the proper verification and is considered an unsigned pleading which produces no effect whatsoever. 90461 for failure to attach thereto certified true copies of the 4 April 2005 RTC Order denying his Motion to Stop Writ of Possession. instead of the 16 February 2006 Resolution denying his first Motion for Reconsideration.[23] Second.[24] as a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution is clearly disallowed by Sec. 2 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure is not applicable to the present case because what is applicable is a Second Motion for Reconsideration in the Supreme Court. . SP No. petitioner Alfredo contends: 1.[22] and (d) the present petition requested for the issuance of an injunction without stating the grounds therefor. petitioner Alfredos second Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Court of Appeals is prohibited by law. That Rule 52 Sec. the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G. On the other hand. as well as the very motion subject of the assailed order. And third.[20] (b) petitioner Alfredo did not allege in the present petition that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction[21] when it dismissed his petition in CA-G.R.R. respondent E-PCI counters that the petition at bar must be dismissed on the following grounds: First.[25] Respondent E-PCI then concludes that the present Petition for Certiorari was filed not to question the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals but as a vain hope of appealing the Order dated April 4. granting arguendo that the petition at bar was properly filed by petitioner Alfredo with this Court. petitioner Alfredos Petition for Certiorari with this Court failed to comply with the technical requirements of the Rules of Court[19] for petitions for certiorari in that (a) the present petition was filed out of time considering that the 60-day period within which to file the same was reckoned from receipt of the 11 April 2006 Resolution denying petitioner Alfredos second Motion for Reconsideration.[26] In reply to the foregoing counter-arguments. 2. Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. as amended. 2005 issued by the Regional Trial Court x x x. 90461 for failure of petitioner Alfredo to submit the required documents.

Petition for certiorari. That the verification based on personal knowledge is proper because the Rules of Court did not distinguish whether the facts is based on personal knowledge or an (sic) authentic records.[27] For its substantive as well as procedural infirmities. 2006 denying the petitioners [Alfredos] Second Motion for Reconsideration and the Rules of Court does not distinguished (sic) whether the denial is first or second. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. the threshold question that must be initially resolved is whether or not the present Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is the proper remedy for petitioner Alfredo to avail of in seeking the reversal of the three Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 6 September 2005. . or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of [its or his] jurisdiction. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal. which reads: Section 1. That the issue of whether or not the mortgage was executed before or after the constitution of the Family Home is a necessary question in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. and 5. Rule 46. xxxx 4. and a sworn certification of non- forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment. the instant petition must be dismissed. Given the above-stated arguments raised by both parties. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. When any tribunal. and there is no appeal. and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. That the 60 day period within which petitioner [Alfredo] may file subject Petition for Certiorari has been reckoned from April 11. 2. copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. 16 February 2006 and 11 April 2006. speedy. board or officer. order or resolution subject thereof. or any plain. A petition for certiorari is governed by Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.

It means lack of power to exercise authority.R.[34] While that of "grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. prejudice.[30] The phrase "without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority[31] or want of legal power.[29] For a petition for certiorari to prosper.[33] or results when an act. 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. 90461 is already a disposition on the merits. SP No. or simply a Petition for Certiorari. right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. the essential requisites that have to concur are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal. said Resolution. there is no question that the 6 September 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner Alfredos petition in CA-G. though within the general power of a tribunal. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Such cannot be used for any other purpose.[28] 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. and (3) there is no appeal or any plain. Therefore. under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. simply put.[35] In the present case. a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.A special civil action for Certiorari. considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter.[32] "Excess of jurisdiction" occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority. power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion. (2) such tribunal. as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. board or officer (to do) is not authorized. as well as the Resolutions dated 16 February 2006 and 11 April 2006 .

viz: SECTION 1. the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law..R.) From the words of Rule 45. there must be no appeal or any plain. may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. 90461 were final orders. are in the nature of a final disposition of CA-G. are appealable to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari. the proper remedy available to petitioner Alfredo then was to file before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. From the foregoing discussion. under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals. SP No. 90461. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. A remedy is considered "plain. and left nothing more to be done by the appellate court. The availability to petitioner Alfredo of the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari from the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals effectively barred his right to resort to a petition for certiorari. the Sandiganbayan.R. may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review.[38] In this case. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. appeal was not . 90461 by the appellate court. issued by the Court of Appeals. which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.denying reconsideration thereof. SP No. There were no remaining issues to be resolved in CA-G. speedy. that is.[36] In the case at bar. the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner Alfredos petition in CA-G. speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. and not a special civil action for certiorari. (Emphasis supplied.[37] They were not interlocutory because the proceedings were terminated. SP No. it is crystal that decisions (judgments). it is fairly obvious that the third requisite for a petition for certiorari is wanting.e.R. and which. i. Basic is the rule that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved. Consequently.

This cannot be allowed.only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.R. to wit: As to the Purpose.[43]summarizes the distinctions between these two remedies. exempt from execution or forced sale. Lapanday Holdings Corporation. of the Revised Rules of Court. once again. not errors of judgment. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule.[39] Moreover. NLRC. an error of judgment that the court may commit in . If it did. respectively. 90461 and not finding that the subject property covered by the Writ of Possession was a Family Home. In Pure Foods Corporation v. He simply argued that the appellate court gravely abuse its discretion which amounted to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his petition in CA- G. we take this opportunity to distinguish between a Petition for Review on Certiorari (an appeal by certiorari) and a Petition for Certiorari (a special civil action/an original action for Certiorari). petitioner Alfredo failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule as to make available to him a petition for certiorari in lieu of making an appeal. He did not give a single explanation as to why the errors committed by the Court of Appeals cannot possibly be cured by ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. under Rules 45 and 65. every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. SP No. Madrigal Transport Inc. hence. an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed.[42] To be sure. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction.[40] Time and again this Court has reminded members of the bench and bar that the special civil action of Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal[41] where the latter remedy is available. Petitioner Alfredo failed to show any valid reason why the issue raised in his petition for certiorari could not have been raised on ordinary appeal by certiorari. especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by ones own negligence or error in the choice of remedies. v. we explained the simple reason for the rule in this light: When a court exercises its jurisdiction. Consequently.

On the other hand. A petition for review should be filed and served within fifteen days from the notice of denial of the decision. 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. Only judgments or final orders and those that the Rules of Court so declared are appealable. As to the Subject Matter. but of an error of law or fact -. or resolution. the petition should be filed also within fifteen days from the notice of judgment or final order. Over an appeal. If a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration was timely filed. the parties to a petition for certiorari are the aggrieved party (who thereby becomes the petitioner) against the lower court or quasi-judicial agency. or of the denial of the petitioners motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. . an original action for certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment. Where a record on appeal is required. As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. 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 -.a mistake of judgment -. The parties to an appeal are the original parties to the action. or of the petitioners timely filed motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.appeal is the remedy. respectively). speedy or adequate remedy. In contrast. As to the Manner of Filing. or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. the CA exercises its appellate jurisdiction and power of review. Since the issue is jurisdiction. order. a petition for certiorari should be filed not later than sixty days from the notice of judgment. as long as it has jurisdiction over the case. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect. the period shall be counted from the denial of the motion. Over a certiorari. and the prevailing parties (the public and the private respondents. In an appeal by certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction. Ordinary appeals should be filed within fifteen days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from. the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance with its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts. or where there is no appeal or any plain.on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case. A motion for reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari. the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil action of certiorari. 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. An appeal is thus a continuation of the original suit. As to the Period of Filing.

1. SP No. and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment. 3. a concise statement of the matters involved. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal. petitioner Alfredo erred in filing a Petition for Certiorari instead of an ordinary appeal by certiorari. the . The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents. 3. in relation to Sec. copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. Rule 46. 3 of Rule 46[45] provides: SEC.R. But even if his present petition is given due course. and (2) petitioner Alfredos Motion to Stop Writ of Possession submitted to the RTC. P-71-2004 denying petitioner Alfredos Motion to Stop Writ of Possession. Rule 65. effect of non-compliance with requirements. When the Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss the petition in CA-G. in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct the alleged errors. it did so on the ground that petitioner Alfredo failed to attach certified true copies of the following: (1) the 4 April 2005 Order of the RTC in LRC Case No. and there is no appeal.) And Sec. Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law. 90461 for failure to attach thereto the pertinent documents. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court. board or officer.R. already a sufficient justification for dismissing the instant petition. In dismissing the petition in CA-G. order or resolution subject thereof. SP No. or any plain. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Evidently. SP No. 90461. therefore. Suitably. the appellate court relied on Sec. 90461. Contents and filing of petition. of the Revised Rules of Court. and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3. we still find it bereft of merit. speedy. Rule 46. Sec. therefore. 1 of Rule 65[44] reads: SECTION 1. When any tribunal.R. Petition for certiorari. Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment or final order. (Emphasis supplied. the proper issue which petitioner Alfredo should raise before this Court in his instant Petition for Certiorari should be whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing his petition in CA-G. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of [its or his] jurisdiction. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction.

xxxx The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. It is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice. [49] and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. Rule 46.[46] this Court has. particularly (1) if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari. or by the proper officer of the court. if any. factual background of the case.R. Failure to comply with the requirement that the petition be accompanied by a duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment. It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment. such material portions of the record as are referred to therein. 1. before. In actions filed under Rule 65. resolution or ruling being challenged is sufficient ground for the dismissal of said petition. tribunal. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly-authorized representative. order. SP No. and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. of the Revised Rules of Court. 3. it cannot be said that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition in CA-G. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original. Consequently. (Emphasis supplied. in relation to Sec. and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. order.[50] .) The afore-quoted provisions are plain and unmistakable.[47] treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari. the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received. Rule 65. resolution. or ruling subject thereof.[48] (2) when errors of judgment are averred. when a motion for new trial or reconsideration. agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. 90461 for non- compliance with Sec. was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.

In fact. Petitioner Alfredo made a critical mistake in waiting for the Court of Appeals to resolve his second motion for reconsideration before pursuing an appeal. Pursuant to Sec. In the case at bar. there is total lack of effort on petitioner Alfredos part to at least explain his inability to comply with the clear requisites of the Revised Rules of Court. since the second paragraph of Sec. we fail to find the existence of such exceptional circumstances in this case. SP No. Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court: SEC. Another elementary rule of procedure is that perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. For this reason. then unavoidably. Time for filing. Try as we might. The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from. and neither did petitioner Alfredo endeavour to prove the existence of any. The reckoning date from which the 15-day period to appeal shall be computed is the date of receipt by petitioner Alfredo of the 16 February 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. 5. 2. Petitioner Alfredos Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of his petition was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution dated 16 February 2006. petitioner Alfredos failure to file this petition within 15 days from receipt of the 16 February 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying his first Motion for Reconsideration. But these exceptions are not applicable to the present factual milieu. 90461 by virtue of a Resolution dated 6 September 2005. the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition of petitioner Alfredo in CA-G. and deprived us of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal thereof. or of the denial of the petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. . extension. 2. Petitioner Alfredo thus had 15 days from receipt of the 16 February 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals within which to file a petition for review. and not of its 11 April 2006 Resolution denying petitioner Alfredos second motion for reconsideration. And since a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed. its filing did not toll the running of the period to file an appeal by certiorari. Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court is explicit that a second motion for reconsideration shall not be allowed. The relaxation of procedural rules may be allowed only when there are exceptional circumstances to justify the same. x x x. however. rendered the same final and executory.R.

WHEREFORE. No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged misapplication of facts and evidence. premises considered. 90461. essentially. SP No. This he cannot validly do for it is an apparent disregard of the proper exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate court. respectively. acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. the People is burdened to establish that the court a quo. Considering the allegations. the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. as well as his failure to sufficiently show that the challenged Resolutions of the Court of Appeals were rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. in this case. We cannot overlook the ruling of the Court of Appeals and proceed right away to a review of the RTC order. much less. 16 February 2006 and 11 April 2006. to seek the reversal and setting aside of the 4 April 2005 Order of the RTC. absent any error of judgment or jurisdiction committed by the former. and erroneous conclusions based on said evidence. a showing of any iota of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the appellate court. without need of further delving deeper into the facts and issues raised by petitioner Alfredo in this Petition for Certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction. Grave abuse of discretion generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. in CA-G. to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in the case at bar. in such case. and not to assail the three Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law.R. However. issues and arguments adduced and our disquisition above. Certiorari . are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Worth noting is the observation of respondent E-PCI that. or to act in contemplation of law or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. The three Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 6 September 2005. we hereby dismiss the instant petition for being the wrong remedy under the Revised Rules of Court. A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. With costs against petitioner Alfredo Tagle. petitioner Alfredo is using the present Petition for Certiorari. All told. a perusal of the challenged Resolutions of the Court of Appeals fail to illustrate any reversible error. the Sandiganbayan.

judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. Its use is confined to extraordinary cases wherein the action of the inferior court is wholly void. which is extra ordinem – beyond the ambit of appeal. No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the court simply because of its alleged misappreciation of facts and evidence.23 and further in First Corporation v. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals:24 It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. While certiorari may be used to correct an abusive acquittal. Its aim is to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In certiorari proceedings. re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo. the petitioner in such extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the lower court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.21 The nature of certiorari action was expounded in People v.will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction. and not errors or mistakes in the findings and conclusions of the trial court.25 . x x x It is not for this Court to re-examine conflicting evidence. Court of Appeals (Fifteenth Div.):22 x x x Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion is an extraordinary remedy.