Law Philippines

Jurisdiction of Philippine Courts in Petitions for Certiorari

Here are thirty (30) things to remember when contemplating on filing a petition under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
General Rule: The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court have
concurrent jurisdiction when it comes to petitions for certiorari.
Exception: De los Reyes vs. People, 480 SCRA 294 [ 2006]
Petition for certiorari to annul RTC orders filed with the SC should be dismissed. It should
have been filed with the CA, following the principle of hierarchy of courts.
[1] If aggrieved, even a non-party may institute a petition for certiorari.
[2] Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are not available under the Rule on
Summary Procedure (Sec. 19), in a petition for a writ of amparo (Sec. 19, Rule on the Writ of
Amparo), and in a petition for a writ of habeas data (Sec. 19, Rule on the Writ of Habeas
Data), It is also not available in small claims cases (Sec. 14 (g). A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC).
[3] If involving acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, the petition should be filed in
CA (Sec. 4).
[4] This writ is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions.
[5] Not available as a remedy for the correction of the acts performed by a sheriff during the
execution process, which acts are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial but are purely ministerial
functions. Prohibition is the proper remedy.
[6] Where the function is merely investigative and recommendatory with no power to
pronounce judgment on the controversy, it does not involve the exercise of judicial or quasijudicial power. Hence, the acts may not be challenged in a petition for certiorari.
[7] A petition for certiorari must be based on jurisdictional grounds because as long as the
respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof
will amount to nothing than an error of judgment which may be reviewed by or corrected by
appeal.
[8] Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be directed against an
interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment. I think this is the
exception rather than the general rule. As a rule, interlocutory orders must not assailed on
certiorari during the pendency of the case except when the same is patently erroneous or is
cause for the miscarriage of justice.
[9] The ground for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is grave abuse of discretion, amounting

to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

[10] A court's denial of motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory, cannot be
questioned by certiorari; it cannot be subject of appeal, until final order or judgment is
rendered. What this means is that if the court denying motion of A rendered a decision in
favor of A, there is no longer any reason for A to appeal. If, however, the decisions is adverse
to A, he can go up to the next court in hierarchy and attach as one of the issues to be resolved
or assign as one of the errors to be reviewer the denial of the motion.
Exceptions: Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition is appropriate:
DBP vs. La Campana Development Corp., 448 SCRA 384 [2005]
[a] When trial court issued the order without or excess of jurisdiction;
[b] When there is patent grave abuse of discretion by the trial court; or,
[c] When appeal would not prove to be a speedy and adequate remedy
as when an appeal would not promptly relieve defendants from
the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order.
[11] A mere denial of an application for an ex parte order for the seizure of evidence is not
indicative of grave abuse of discretion where petitioner failed to point out specific instances
where grave abuse of discretion was allegedly committed and how the respondent court
supposedly exercised its power in a despotic, capricious or whimsical manner.
[12] A judge gravely abuses his discretion when he extends by twenty (20) days the 72-hour
restraining order he initially issued because "in no case shall the total period of effectivity of
the temporary restraining order exceed 20 day.".
[13] There is grave abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to determine a factual
controversy before issuing a writ of demolition. Failure to do so is to disregard basic
principles of due process because before demolition could be effected, the parties concerned
must be heard.
[14] For the extraordinary writ of certiorari to issue, the petitioner must have no other
recourse, appeal, for example, or any other remedy that makes the reparation of injury plain,
speedy and adequate .
[15] Under the 2000 National Prosecution Service Rules on Appeal, the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice affirming, modifying or reversing the resolution of the Investigating
Prosecutor is final. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals since there is no more appeal or other remedy available in the ordinary
course of law. To file an appeal with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 is an improper
remedy.
[16] The CA is empowered under its certiorari jurisdiction to annul and declare void the
questioned resolutions of the Secretary of Justice, but only on two grounds lack of
jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The power to
reverse and set aside partakes of an appellate jurisdiction which the CA does not have over
judgments of the Secretary of Justice exercising quasi-judicial functions.
[17] A judgment or final order of the Court of Appeals on the petition for certiorari against

the Secretary of Justice is reviewable by the Supreme Court by a petition for review under
Rule 45, not the original action for certiorari under Rule 65. It is elementary that a writ of
certiorari under Rule 65 where the remedy of appeal (like Rule 45) is available precludes
certiorari.
[18] Generally, if appeal is available, certiorari cannot be resorted to. Appeal and certiorari
mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
[19] Certiorari filed instead of appeal during period of appeal did not toll period or prevent
judgment from becoming final.
[20] Certiorari not substitute for lost appeal. Existence and availability of the right to appeal
prohibits the resort to certiorari even if the error ascribed to the court is lack or excess of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or law set out in the decision.
[21] If remedy of appeal lost due to petitioners neglect or error in choice of remedies,
certiorari not substitute or tool to shield petitioner from adverse effects.
Exceptions:
[a] When public welfare and advancement of public policy dictate.
[b] When broader interest of justice so requires.
[c] When writs issued are null and void.
[d] When questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
[e] Where appeal is not adequate, speedy and effective.
[f] In any such instances, special civil action of certiorari may be availed of

Even during the pendency of the case or even after judgment,

or

Even when appeal has been availed of

[22] Availability of appeal does not foreclose recourse to certiorari where appeal not
adequate, or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient.
[23] Rule may be relaxed when rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage
of justice.
[24] Where remedies not incompatible, filing of certiorari not abandonment of appeal. Appeal
is from decision in main case while certiorari is against order denying motion for new trial.
[25] An appeal from a judgment does not bar a certiorari petition against the order granting
execution pending appeal and the issuance of the writ of execution.
[24] However, a party is not allowed to question a decision on the merits and also invoke
certiorari. Filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and ordinary appeal under Rule 41
cannot be allowed because one remedy would necessarily cancel each other.
[25] It is the danger of failure of justice without the writ, not the mere absence of all legal
remedies, that must determine the propriety of certiorari.
[26] In many instances, the Supreme Court has treated a petition for review under Rule 45 as

a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, where the subject of the recourse was one of
jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a court with grave abuse or
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction but when the petition denominated as a
Rule 45 petition neither involves any issue of jurisdiction nor a grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the Court of Appeals, it should be dismissed outright.
[27] A prior motion for reconsideration is required before certiorari can be filed.
[28] Although the RTC has the authority to annul final judgments, such authority pertains
only to final judgments rendered by inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies of equal ranking
with such inferior courts. Given that DARAB decisions are appealable to the CA, the
inevitable conclusion is that the DARAB is a co-equal body with the RTC and its decisions
are beyond the RTCs control.
[29] Rule 43 refers to appeals from judgments or orders of quasi-judicial agencies in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial functions. On the other hand, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
specifically governs special civil actions for certiorari, Section 4 of which provides that if the
petition involves acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided
by law or the rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the CA.
[30] Cases to read:
1. Alcaraz. vs. Gonzales. G.R. No. 164715, September 26, 2006
2. Bermudez vs.Gonzales, 347 SCRA 611 [2000]
3. Beso vs. Aballe, 326 SCRA 100 [2000]
4. Buan vs. Matugas, G.R. No. 161179, August 7, 2007
5. Bugarin vs. Palisoc, G.R. No. 157985, December 2, 2005,476 SCRA 587
6. China Banking Corporation vs. Asian Construction and Development Corporation,
G.R. No. 158271, April 8, 2008
7. DBP vs. La Campana Development Corp., 448 SCRA 384 [2005]
8. De los Reyes vs. People, 480 SCRA 294 [ 2006]
9. Del Rosario vs. Galagot, 166 SCRA 429
10. Doran vs. Luczon,G.R.No. 151344, September 26, 2006
11. Estrera vs. CA, G.R. No. 154235, August 16, 2006
12. Lansang, Jr. vs. CA, 184 SCRA 230
13. Maacop vs. Equitable PCIBank, 468 SCRA 256
14. Marawi Marantao General Hospital vs. CA, 349 SCRA 321

15. Mejares vs. Reyes, 254 SCRA 425

16. Microsoft Corporation vs. Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, 389 SCRA 615
[2002]
17. Miguel vs. JCT Group, Inc., 458 SCRA 529 [2005]
18. New Frontier Sugar Corporation vs. RTC of Iloilo, G.R. No. 165001, January 31,
2007
19. Pamana, Inc. vs. CA, 460 SCRA 133 [2005]
20. PNB vs. Sayoc, 292 SCRA 365
21. Professional Regulations Commission vs. CA, 292 SCRA 155
22. Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. SM Prime
Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 170599, September 22, 2010
23. Seven Brothers Shipping Corp. vs. CA, 246 SCRA 33 [1995]
24. Spouses Balanguan vs. CA, G. R. No. 174350, August 13, 2008
25. Springfield Development Corp. vs. Presiding Judge of RTC of Misamis Oriental,
Branch 40, G.R. No. 142628, February 6, 2007
26. St. Peter Memorial Park vs. Campos, 63 SCRA 180
27. Tan, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 292 SCRA 452