Elauria, J. Paulo R.

Third Assignment Remedial Law Review 2

Rule 65 (Certiorari): Discussion

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is
no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging
the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying
the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as
law and justice may require…

In the concurring opinion of Justice Bersamin on the case Lachica vs CSC (GR
197762), The phrase no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law in Section 1 and Section 2 of Rule 65 simply means that the
appeal or other remedy available in the ordinary course of law is not equally
beneficial, speedy and adequate. The appropriate remedy should not be merely one
that at some time in the future will bring about a revival of the judgment complained of in
the certiorari proceeding, but one that will promptly relieve the petitioner from the
injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior court or tribunal concerned.

Consequently, the availability of the appeal under Rule 43 as a recourse

from the adverse decision of the CSC should not immediately preclude the
petitioner's resort to the special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition
provided the petitioner could sufficiently show that such remedy would not be
beneficial, speedy and adequate to address its grievance.

It is also to be noted, that in the case of A.L. Ang Network, Inc., vs. Mondejar (GR
200804), in a small claims case, where there is no appeal or other remedy available
from the decision of the Municipal Trial Court, the proper remedy is filing a petition
for certiorari to the Regional Trial Courts.

In the consolidated cases of et.al. vs. Sandiganbayan (GR 144760-61, 167311-

12, 167316-17, and 167625-26), the issues raised by Nava were undoubtedly errors of

1|Page
Elauria, J. Paulo R. Third Assignment Remedial Law Review 2

judgment for which both law and jurisprudence prescribe the remedy of appeal;
and not a petition for certiorari.

In Murase HotelCare Corporation vs. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Murase

HotelCare Corporation, it is settled that the rule for a petition for certiorari does not
arise from a lost appeal by the party.

2|Page