You are on page 1of 10

Special Civil Actions - Certiorari Cases

Balba vs. Peak Development

It is sometimes necessary to delve into factual issues in order to resolve
allegations of grave abuse of discretion as a ground


- Balba, an accountant, was dismissed from Peak

Development for lost of trust and confidence on the basis
o 1) Failing to promptly submit her reports on the
newly legislated E-VAT law at that time
o 2) Being clearly inefficient in her tasks
- Subsequently, she filed for illegal dismissal for lack of
sufficient grounds for dismissal.
- LA: Valid dismissal. Awarded unpaid bonus for 1996.
- NLRC: Valid dismissal. MODIFIED: Awarded separation
- Balba appealed to CA via Petition for Certiorari under 65
for Grave Abuse of Discretion.
- CA-MR: delving to factual issues, it reversed the ruling
of the NLRC.
- Balba appealled contending that in a petition of Certiorari
under Rule 65, Courts were restricted to rule on
jurisdictional issues and not factual issues.


- WON CAs ruling was valid despite the fact that it delved
into factual issues. YES.

- It is sometimes necessary to delve into factual issues in

order to resolve allegations of grave abuse of discretion as
a ground.
- In this case, there was grave abuse of discretion. The
grounds for dismissal did not tantamount of a valid cause
for dismissal.

New Frontier Sugar Corp vs. RTC Iloilo

Certiorari is a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction not errors of


- New Frontier Sugar Corp filed a petition a petition for

corporate rehabilitation in the RTC.
- This was opposed by one of his creditors who contended
that it was not qualified for corporate rehabilitation as it
could no longer operate considering that it had no more assents left.
- RTC: Dismissed case.
- New Frontier filed Certiorari under 65 in CA.
- CA: Dismissed.
- Filed for Certiorari under 65 again.


- WON certiorari was proper. NO.

- New Frontier was seeking for the correction of the
judgment of the RTC. A power that the courts do not have
in a petition for certiorari. WRONG REMEDY.
- Certiorari is a remedy for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction not errors of judgment.

Camutin vs. Potente

Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal
nor any plain speedy or adequate (PSA) remedy in the ordinary course of law.


- Petitioners Camutin who resided abroad, came home to

find that respondent spouses Potente had built a
warehouse on their lot.
- Subsequently, the agreed that Potente would pay rentals.
- Despite the agreement, Pontete failed to pay rentals.
- 3 cases were filed against them:
o 1) Partition in RTC.
o 2) Removal of Warehouse in Barangay.
o 3) Unlawful detainer in MTC.
- In the barangay case, the parties entered into agreement for
the suspension of the complaint until the end of one of the
hearing in the partition case.
- The MTC found out about the agreement and
misinterpreted it as an amicable settlement hence it
dismissed the case.
- Camutin then filed for Certiorari under 65 in the RTC.
- RTC: Dismissed because appeal was still available.

- WON denial of petition for certiorari was proper. YES.


- Petitioners had failed to first exhaust all appeals or

remedies in the ordinary course of law that were available.
- Moreover, it wanted courts to rule on error of judgments.
- Case was declared moot and academic because MTC revived the case
during pendency of certiorari.

Bugarin vs. Palisoc


- Palisoc filed a forcible entry case by herein petitioners in

the MTC.
- MTC: Ruled infavor of Palisoc.
- RTC: Affirmed findings of MTC. Bugarin failed to appeal
the vase hence it attained finality.
- Aggrieved, Bugarin filed for Certiorari under Rule 65 after
the 15 day appeal period but within the 60 day period.
o filed for certiorari in the CA alleging that the MTC
had acted with abuse of discretion when it issued the
Special Order of Demolition considering that the 30-
day notice mandated by the Urban Development Act
was not complied with.


- WON Certiorari was proper. NO.

- Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for a lost
o Bugarin had until March 27 to file an appeal but they
failed to file an appeal and instead filed for certiorari
on April 10.

Lalican vs. Vergara


- Lalican was being charged by the fiscal of the Puerto

Princessa for illegal possession of lumber
- Lalican moved to quash the information on the ground
that what was provided for in the information did not
constitute an offense because the law punishes the
possession of timber and not lumber
- RTC: Dismissed motion to quash.
- Lalican filed for Certiorari under 65 for grave abuse of


- WON proper. NO.


- As held in jurisprudence, the proper remedy of a party

whos motion to quash is denied is to go to trial, defend his
case and then appeal it later on if convicted.

Nische vs. Equitable PCI Bank

- Equitable PCI Bank filed foreclosure proceedings against
the property of the spouses Nische for failing to fulfill their
- RTC: Ruled in favor of Nische.
- The bank opted not to file an MR and instead proceeded
to assail the RTCs order via Certiorari under 65 in the CA
wherein it argued that the RTC had acted with grave abuse
of discretion for issuing the preliminary injunction.
- CA: Reversed decision of RTC.
- Spouses Nische appealed on ground that the CA should
have dismissed the petition outright because of the absence
of a condition precedent AKA the filing of the MR in the

- WON the petition should have been dismissed outright



- As a rule, an MR has to first be filed before a party may

apply for a Certiorari under 65.
- However, there are exceptions to this rule. This case is an
exception because the order is a patent nullity, considering
that the writ was issued without proof of:
o 1) a legal right
o 2) injury sustained by the plaintiff.
- As such, MR not required. Waste of time.
Advocates for Truth in Lending vs. BSP


- Petitioner Advocates for Truth in Lending, filed a petition

for certiorari against the CB/BSP for exceeding its
authority for repealing the Usuary Law (an RA) via a
- It filed the petition immediately in the SC, skipping the
hierarchy of courts, invoking transcendental importance.


- WON Certiorari proper. NO.


- No. The BSP/CB is not an entity that exercises

judicial/quasi-judicial powers.
- One of the requirements in a petition for certiorari is that it
be filed against a tribunal, office or board that exercises
judicial/quasi judicial functions.

Galicto vs. Aquino


- In 2010, President Aquino issued EO 7 which suspended

all allowances, bonuses and incentives (ABI) of members
of the Board of Directors of Government Owned and
Controlled Corporations (GOCC)
- This EO was assailed by Galicto via certiorari under 65. He
alleged the president had gravely abused his discretion
because pursuant to the law, said the president had no
control over the fiscal power of government owned


- WON Certiorari was proper. NO.


- The assailed is was not issued in the exercise of judicial or

quasi judicial.
- Said characteristic is a requirement in a petition for
certiorari and hence the petition should fail.
1. Balba vs. Peak Development
- Accountant dismissed.
- CA looked into factual issues. Valid if needed to determine

2. New Frontier Sugar Corp vs. RTC

- Company filed for corporate rehabilitation. Used 65 for
errors of judgment.
- Issues of error of judgment not allowed in 65.

3. Camutin vs. Spouses Potente

- Pontentes build a warehouse on lot of Camutin. RTC
issued a ruling. Did not appeal, opted to 65 instead.
- Certiorari not a substitute for a lost appeal.

4. Bugarin vs. Palisoc

- Palisoc filed for forcible entry against Bugarin. Failed to
file appeal within 15 days. Filed for 65, 15 days later.
- Certiorari not a substitute for a lost appeal.

5. Lalicon vs. Equitable Bank

- Charged for illegal possession of lumber. Argued no such
crime. Filed 65 after motion to quash information denied.
- Certiorari not proper remedy. Proper remedy is to proceed
with case and then appeal if convicted.

6. Sps Niche vs. Equitable PCI Bank

- Bank foreclosed mortgage. RTC ruled in favor of Niche.
Bank filed for 65 in CA without filing MR. Niche argued
should have been dismissed because failure to comply with
condition precedent.
- General Rule is no MR, no certiorari. However, exception
in this case. Patent nullity considering Writ of Injunction
was issued without proof.

7. Advocates for Truth in Lending vs. BSP

- Petitioners assailed BSPs authority to issue circular
repealing the usury law.
- BSP not a body that exercises judicial/quasi judicial
functions. Improper.

8. Galicto vs. Aquino

- Galicto assailed Aquinos EO suspending the grant of
allowances to GOCCs.
- Improper petition because said EO was not issued in the
exercise of judicial/quasijudicial powers.