[68] Estinozo v.
CA (FRANCISCO) would prejudice her substantial rights;
Feb 12, 2008 | Nachura, J. | Appeals by certiorari to the SC (Rule 45)
PETITIONER: Cecilia B. Estinozo
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, Former Sixteenth Division, and People of
the Philippines
DOCTRINE: A petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) and a petition
for certiorari (Rule 65) are mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari cannot co-
exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. With petitioner’s erroneous
filing of a motion for extension of time and with her non-filing of a motion for
reconsideration or a petition for review from the CA’s decision, the decision has
already attained finality and may no longer be reviewed. A Rule 65 petition
cannot even substitute for the lost appeal—certiorari is not a procedural device
to deprive the winning party of the fruits of the judgment in his or her favor.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Estonizo, while in Southern Leyte, represented to private complainants
that she was one of the owners of Golden Overseas Employment and was
recruiting workers to be sent abroad. She asked from complainants the payment
of placement and processing fees (P15k), which the latter paid relying on her
promise that they would be deployed by July 1986.
2. However, on the promised date, petitioner said there were no available plane
tickets and they would leave on September instead. By November, they were still
not deployed. These prompted complainants to suspect and demand the return of
their money. Petitioner assured them refund of the fees and promissory notes, but
to no avail.
3. They filed an estafa case against petitioner.
4. As a defense, the latter testified that:
a. she was an employee of COA who worked as a part-time secretary at FCR
Recruitment Agency owned by Ramirez;
b. she received the money and remitted it to Ramirez;
c. complainants transacted with Ramirez and not her; and
d. she was forced to execute the promissory notes.
5. RTC: GUILTY of 7 counts (estafa through false pretenses
6. CA: AFFIRMED
- Ramirez was never mentioned when petitioner conducted her recruitment
activities and no evidence was shown to prove the remittance of money.
7. Within the 15-day reglementary period to file a MR or a petitioner for review,
petioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a MR.
- Denied pursuant to Sec. 1 of Rule 52 of the ROC and Sec. 2 of Rule 9 of the
Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.
8. Petitioner filed a MR, but was denied. She instituted the instant petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 alleging that:
a. her previous counsel, by filing a prohibited pleading, foreclosed her right to
file a MR of the CA’s decision and appeal the same;
b. she should not be bound by the counsel’s negligence and mistake since it
c. CA graveley abused its discretion when it affirmed her conviction absent any
direct testimony from complainants;
d. She was deprived of her constitutional right to cross-examine the
complainants
e. there was reasonable doubt as to her guilt through the evidence she presented
9.
ISSUE: W/N the correct remedy to challenge the outright dismissal of Golden Cane’s
petition for rehabilitation is a petition for review (Rule 43) or a petition for certiorari
(Rule 65) – petition for review under Rule 43
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
RATIO:
1. The petition is the wrong remedy to question the appellate court’s issuances. Sec.
1 of Rule 45 of the ROC expressly provides that a party desiring to appeal
by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the CA may file a
verified petition for review on certiorari.
2. In this case, appeal by certiorari was available to petitioner, she effectively
foreclosed her right to resort to a special civil action for certiorari, a limited form
of review and a remedy of last recourse, which lies only where there is no appeal
or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
3. A petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) and a petition for certiorari (Rule
65) are mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or
any other adequate remedy.
- The nature of the questions of law intended to be raised on appeal is of no
consequence. Those questions of law will treat exclusively of whether or not
the judgment or final order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion.
- The remedy is appeal, not certiorari as a special civil action.
4. Even granting arguendo that the instant certiorari petition is an appropriate
remedy, still the Court cannot grant the writ prayed for because there is no finding
of grave abuse of discretion committed by the CA.
5. The 15-day reglementary period for appealing or filing a MR/MNT cannot be
extended, except in cases before the Court, as one of last resort, which may, in its
sound discretion grant the extension requested.
- This rule also applies even if the motion is filed before the expiration of the
period sought to be extended. Thus, the appellate court correctly denied
petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for
Reconsideration.
6. With petitioner’s erroneous filing of a motion for extension of time and with her
non-filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review from the CA’s
decision, the decision has already attained finality and may no longer be reviewed.
 - A Rule 65 petition cannot even substitute for the lost appeal—certiorari is
not a procedural device to deprive the winning party of the fruits of the
judgment in his or her favor.
- When a decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction
over the case and not even an appellate court will have the power to review
the said judgment. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation.
7. Amatorio v. People: relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved
from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to
his own negligence, or to a mistaken mode of procedure.
8. Party-litigants and their lawyers to refrain from filing frivolous petitions
for certiorari. Sect. 8 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, provide
that:

“…the court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same patently without merit or
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration. In such event, the court may award in favor
of the respondent treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel, in
addition to subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under Rules 139 and 139-
B of the Rules of Court.

The Court may impose motu propio, based on res ipsa loquitor, other disciplinary
sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious
petitions for certiorari.”