AGBAYANI, DORIS JOY

Assignment 11
1. MARCELO A. MESINA vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ARSENIO
M. GONONG, G.R. N. !"1#$ Nvem%e& 1', 1()*
+ACTS:Respondent Jose Go purchased from Associated Bank Cashier's Check for P800,000.00.
Unfortunate!, Jose Go eft said check on the top of the desk of the "ank mana#er $hen he eft the "ank.
%he "ank mana#er entrusted the check for safekeepin# to a "ank o&cia, a certain A"ert U!, $ho had
then a 'isitor in the person of Ae(ander )im. %he check no$ $as no$here to "e found. U! ad'ised Jose Go
to #o to the "ank to accompish a *+%,P PA-./0%* order. 1e aso e(ecuted an a&da'it of oss. U! $ent to
the poice to report the oss of the check, pointin# to the person of Ae(ander )im as the one $ho coud
shed i#ht on it.
%he records of the poice sho$ that Associated Bank recei'ed the ost check for cearin# comin# from
Prudentia Bank, /scota Branch. %he check $as dishonored "! Associated Bank "! sendin# it "ack to
Prudentia Bank, $ith the $ords *Pa!ment +topped* stamped on it. )ater, Associated Bank recei'ed a etter
from a certain Att!. )oren2o 0a'arro demandin# pa!ment on the cashier's check in 3uestion, $hich $as
"ein# hed "! his cient. 1e ho$e'er refused to re'ea the name of his cient and threatened to sue, if
pa!ment is not made. Respondent "ank repied sa!in# that the check "eon#ed to Jose Go $ho ost it in the
"ank and is a!in# caim to it.
Poice sent a etter to the .ana#er of the Prudentia Bank, /scota Branch, re3uestin# assistance in
4dentif!in# the person $ho tried to encash the check "ut said "ank refused sa!in# that it had to protect its
cient's interest and the 4dentit! coud on! "e re'eaed $ith the cient's conformit!.
Unsure of $hat to do on the matter, respondent Associated Bank on 5ed an action for 4nterpeader namin#
as respondent, Jose Go and one John 6oe, Att!. 0a'arro's then unnamed cient. ,n e'en date, respondent
"ank recei'ed summons and cop! of the compaint for dama#es of a certain .arceo A. .esina from R%C of
Caoocan Cit!. Respondent "ank mo'ed to amend its compaint, ha'in# "een noti5ed for the 5rst time of
the name of Att!. 0a'arro's cient and su"stituted .arceo A. .esina for John 6oe.
Jose Go 5ed his ans$er in the 4nterpeader Case and mo'ed to participate as inter'enor in the compain
for dama#es. A"ert U! 5ed a motion of inter'ention and ans$er in the compaint for 4nterpeader. ,n the
+chedued date of pretria conference inthe interpeader case, it $as discosed that the *John 6oe*
impeaded as one of the defendants is actua! petitioner .arceo A. .esina.
ISSUE, 7,0 the action for interpeader is proper8
HELD, -es. Respondent "ank mere! took the necessar! precaution not to make a mistake as to $hom to
pa! and therefore interpeader $as its proper remed!. 4t has "een sho$n that the interpeader suit $as
5ed "! respondent "ank "ecause petitioner and Jose Go $ere "oth a!in# their caims on the check,
petitioner askin# pa!ment thereon and Jose Go as the purchaser or o$ner. %he ae#ation of petitioner that
respondent "ank had e9ecti'e! reie'ed itsef of its primar! ia"iit! under the check "! simp! 5in# a
compaint for interpeader is "eied "! the $iin#ness of respondent "ank to issue a certi5cate of time
deposit in the amount of P800,000 representin# the cashier's check in 3uestion in the name of the Cerk of
Court of .ania to "e a$arded to $hoe'er $i# "e found "! the court as 'aid! entited to it. +aid 'aidit!
$i depend on the stren#th of the parties' respecti'e ri#hts and tites thereto. Bank 5ed the interpeader
suit not "ecause petitioner sued it "ut "ecause petitioner is a!in# caim to the same check that Go is
caimin#. ,n the 'er! da! that the "ank instituted the case in interpeader, it $as not a$are of an! suit for
dama#es 5ed "! petitioner a#ainst it as supported "! the fact that the interpeader case $as 5rst
entited Associated Bank vs. Jose Go and John Doe, "ut ater on chan#ed to .arceo A. .esina for John 6oe
$hen his name "ecame kno$n to respondent "ank.
:urther, "efore respondent "ank resorted to 4nterpeader, it took precautionar! and necessar! measures to
"rin# out the truth. ,n the other hand, petitioner conceaed the circumstances kno$n to him and no$ that
pri'ate respondent "ank "rou#ht these circumstances out in court ;$hich e'entua! rendered its decision
in the i#ht of these facts<, petitioner char#es it $ith *#ratuitous e(cursions into these non=issues.*
Respondent 4AC cannot rue on $hether respondent R%C committed an a"use of discretion or not, $ithout
"ein# apprised of the facts and reasons $h! respondent Associated Bank instituted the 4nterpeader case.
Both parties $ere #i'en an opportunit! to present their sides. Petitioner chose to $ithhod su"stantia
facts. Respondents $ere not for"idden to present their side=this is the purpose of the Comment of
respondent to the petition. 4AC decided the 3uestion "! considerin# "oth the facts su"mitted "! petitioner
and those #i'en "! respondents. 4AC did not act therefore "e!ond the scope of the remed! sou#ht in the
petition.
>. A0%,04, 6/)U./0, /% A). 's. R/PUB)4C ,: %1/ P14)4PP40/+, Januar! >8, ?@AB G.R. 0o. )=AAA>
:AC%+: Antonio, Juan and Juito, a surnamed 6eumen, 5ed a petition for decarator! reief in the C:4 of
+amar, ae#in# that the! are e#itimate chidren of Pacencia Pua, a :iipino $oman, and .ariano 6eumen
$ho $as decared a :iipino citi2en "! the same court in an order dated Au#ust C, ?@A0, and pra!in# said
court to determine $hether the! are :iipino citi2ens and to decare their correspondin# ri#hts and duties. 4t
is further ae#ed in the petition that the petitioners ha'e continuous! resided in the Phiippines since their
"irth, ha'e considered themse'es as :iipinos, had e(ercised the ri#ht to 'ote in the #enera eections of
?@BD and ?@BC, and $ere re#istered 'oters for the eections in ?@A?.
%he +oicitor Genera, in "ehaf of the Repu"ic of the Phiippines, 5ed an ans$er ae#in# that the petition
states no cause of action, there "ein# no ad'erse part! a#ainst $hom the petitioners ha'e an actua or
Eusticia"e contro'ers!.
C:4 of +amar decared the appeees to "e :iipinos "! "irth and "ood. :rom this decision the +oicitor
Genera has appeaed.
4++U/: 7,0 %1/ AC%4,0 :,R 6/C)ARA%,R- R/)4/: 4+ PR,P/R8
1/)6: 0ot proper. *A petition for decarator! reief must "e predicated on the foo$in# re3uisites: ;?<
there must "e a Eusticia"e contro'ers!F ;>< the contro'ers! must "e "et$een persons $hose interest are
ad'erseF ;G< the part! seekin# decarator! reief must ha'e a e#a interest in the contro'ers!F and ;B< the
issue in'oked must "e ripe for Eudicia determination.*
7hie the +oicitor Genera contends that the Eusticia"e contro'ers! is one in'o'in# * an acti'e
anta#onistic assertion of a e#a ri#ht on one side and a denia thereof on the other concernin# a rea, and
not a mere theoretica 3uestion or issue * and that in the present case *no speci5c person $as mentioned
in the petition as ha'in# or caimin# an ad'erse interest in the matter and $ith $hom the appeees ha'e
an actua contro'ers!,* the appeees ar#ue that, "! 'irtue of the ans$er 5ed "! the +oicitor Genera
opposin# the petition for decarator! reief, a Eusticia"e contro'ers! there"! arose. 7e are of the opinion
that the appeant's contention is tena"e, since there is nothin# in the petition $hich e'en intimates that
the ae#ed status of the appeees as :iipino citi2ens had in an! instance "een 3uestioned or denied "!
an! speci5c person or authorit!. 4ndeed, the petition ae#es that the appeees ha'e considered
themse'es and $ere considered "! their friends and nei#h"ors as :iipino citi2ens, 'oted in the #enera
eections of ?@BD and ?@BC, and $ere re#istered 'oters for the eections of ?@A?, and it is not pretended
that on an! of said occasions their citi2enship $as contro'erted. 4t is not accurate to sa!, as appeees do,
that an actua contro'ers! arose after the 5in# "! the +oicitor Genera of an opposition to the petition, for
the reason that the cause of action must "e made out "! the ae#ations of the compaint or petition,
$ithout the aid of the ans$er. As a matter of fact, the ans$er herein ae#es that the petition states no
cause of action. 4n essence, the appeees mere! $anted to remo'e a dou"ts in their minds as to their
citi2enship, "ut an action for decarator! Eud#ment cannot "e in'oked soe! to determine or tr! issues or
to determine a moot, a"stract or theoretica 3uestion, or decide caims $hich are uncertain or
h!pothetica. And the fact that the appeees' desires are th$arted "! their *o$n dou"ts, or "! fears of
others . . . does not confer a cause of action.*
'. +ELIPE B. OLLADA et -., vs. CENTRAL BAN/ O+ THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. N. L011'$! M-1 '1,
1(*2
+ACTS: :eipe B. ,ada is a certi5ed pu"ic accountant and accredited to practice accountanc! in the
o&ce of the Centra Bank of the Phiippines. 4n 6ecem"er, ?@AA, "! reason of a re3uirement of the 4mport=
/(port 6epartment of said "ank that CPAs su"mit to an accreditation under oath "efore the! coud certif!
5nancia statements of their cients app!in# for import doar aocations $ith its o&ce, ,ada's pre'ious
accreditation $as nui5ed.
Assaiin# said accreditation re3uirement on the #round that it $as ;a< an una$fu in'asion of the
Eurisdiction of the Board of Accountanc!, ;"< in e(cess of the po$ers of the Centra Bank and ;c<
unconstitutiona in that it una$fu! restrained the e#itimate pursuit of one's trade, ,ada, for himsef and
ae#ed! on "ehaf of numerous other CPAs, 5ed a petition for 6ecarator! Reief in the C:4 of .ania to
nuif! said accreditation re3uirement.
Centra Bank 5ed a motion to dismiss the petition for 6ecarator! Reief for ack of cause of action. 4ts
main contention $as that the Centra Bank has the responsi"iit! of administerin# the .onetar! Bankin#
+!stem of the Repu"ic and is authori2ed to prepare and issue, throu#h its .onetar! Board, rues and
re#uations to make e9ecti'e the dischar#e of such responsi"iit!F that the accreditation re3uirement
ae#ed in the petition $as issued in the e(ercise of such po$er and authorit!F that the purpose of such
re3uirement is not to re#uate the practice of accountanc! in the Phiippines "ut on! the manner in $hich
certi5ed pu"ic accountants shoud transact "usiness $ith the Centra Bank.
+ti, ,ada appied for a $rit of preiminar! inEunction to restrain the respondent Centra Bank of the
Phiippines from enforcin# the accreditation re3uirement aforesaid unti 5na adEudication of the case.
ISSUE, 3ON petition for decarator! reief shoud "e #ranted8
HELD, 0,.%he on! o"Eectiona"e features of respondent's re3uirement ha'e aread! "een eiminated "!
said respondent ha'in# deeted from its CB=4/6 :orm 0o. A, kno$n as Appication for Accreditation of
Certi5ed Pu"ic Accountants, para#raph ?G and modi5ed para#raph ?B thereof, as $e as "! modif!in# CB=
4/6 :orm 0o. D kno$n as Accreditation Card for Certi5ed Pu"ic Accountants.
4t appears, therefore, that after respondent had eiminated said o"Eectiona"e features, the petition for
decarator! reief has "ecome #roundess and shoud "e dismissed.
Petitioner commenced this action as, and cear! intended it to "e one for 6ecarator! Reief under the
pro'isions of Rue DD of the Rues of Court. ,n the 3uestion of $hen a specia ci'i action of this nature
$oud prosper, compaint for decarator! reief $i not prosper if 5ed after a contract, statute or ri#ht has
"een "reached or 'ioated. 4n the present case such is precise! the situation arisin# from the facts ae#ed
in the petition for decarator! reief. As 'i#orous! caimed "! petitioner himsef, respondent had aread!
in'aded or 'ioated his ri#ht and caused him inEur! a these #i'in# him a compete cause of action
enforcea"e in an appropriate ordinar! ci'i action or proceedin#.
An action for decarator! reief shoud "e 5ed "efore there has "een a "reach of a contract, statutes or
ri#ht, and that it is su&cient to "ar such action, that there had "een a "reach $hich $oud constitute
actiona"e 'ioation. %he rue is that an action for 6ecarator! Reief is proper on! if ade3uate reief is not
a'aia"e throu#h the means of other e(istin# forms of action or proceedin#.
#. U1 Li- Eng vs. Ni4n Lee, G.R. N. 1!*)'1, J-n5-&1 1$, 2"1"
+ACTS, Respondent 0i(on )ee 5ed a petition for mandamus $ith dama#es a#ainst his mother U! Hiao
/n#, herein petitioner, "efore the R%C of .ania to compe petitioner to produce the hoo#raphic $i of his
father so that pro"ate proceedin#s for the ao$ance thereof coud "e instituted. Respondent had aread!
re3uested his mother to sette and i3uidate the patriarchs estate and to dei'er to the e#a heirs their
respecti'e inheritance, "ut petitioner refused to do so $ithout an! Eusti5a"e reason. Petitioner denied that
she $as in custod! of the ori#ina hoo#raphic $i and that she kne$ of its $herea"outs. %he R%C heard
the case. After the presentation and forma o9er of respondents e'idence, petitioner demurred,
contendin# that her son faied to pro'e that she had in her custod! the ori#ina hoo#raphic $i. %he R%C,
at 5rst, denied the demurrer to e'idence. 1o$e'er, it #ranted the same on petitioners motion for
reconsideration. Respondents motion for reconsideration of this atter order $as denied. 1ence, the
petition $as dismissed. A##rie'ed, respondent sou#ht re'ie$ from the appeate court.
ISSUE, 7,0 mandamus is the proper remed! of the respondent8
HELD, 0ot proper. .andamus is a command issuin# from a court of a$ of competent Eurisdiction, in the
name of the state or the so'erei#n, directed to some inferior court, tri"una, or "oard, or to some
corporation or person re3uirin# the performance of a particuar dut! therein speci5ed, $hich dut! resuts
from the o&cia station of the part! to $hom the $rit is directed or from operation of a$. %his de5nition
reco#ni2es the pu"ic character of the remed!, and cear! e(cudes the idea that it ma! "e resorted to for
the purpose of enforcin# the performance of duties in $hich the pu"ic has no interest. %he $rit is a proper
recourse for citi2ens $ho seek to enforce a pu"ic ri#ht and to compe the performance of a pu"ic dut!,
most especia! $hen the pu"ic ri#ht in'o'ed is mandated "! the Constitution. As the 3uoted pro'ision
instructs, mandamus $i ie if the tri"una, corporation, "oard, o&cer, or person una$fu! ne#ects the
performance of an act $hich the a$ enEoins as a dut! resutin# from an o&ce, trust or station.
%he $rit of mandamus, ho$e'er, $i not issue to compe an o&cia to do an!thin# $hich is not his dut! to
do or $hich it is his dut! not to do, or to #i'e to the appicant an!thin# to $hich he is not entited "! a$.
0or $i mandamus issue to enforce a ri#ht $hich is in su"stantia dispute or as to $hich a su"stantia
dou"t e(ists, athou#h o"Eection raisin# a mere technica 3uestion $i "e disre#arded if the ri#ht is cear
and the case is meritorious. As a rue, mandamus $i not ie in the a"sence of an! of the foo$in#
#rounds: IaJ that the court, o&cer, "oard, or person a#ainst $hom the action is taken una$fu! ne#ected
the performance of an act $hich the a$ speci5ca! enEoins as a dut! resutin# from o&ce, trust, or
stationF or I"J that such court, o&cer, "oard, or person has una$fu! e(cuded petitionerKreator from the
use and enEo!ment of a ri#ht or o&ce to $hich he is entited. ,n the part of the reator, it is essentia to
the issuance of a $rit of mandamus that he shoud ha'e a cear e#a ri#ht to the thin# demanded and it
must "e the imperati'e dut! of respondent to perform the act re3uired.
Reco#ni2ed further in this Eurisdiction is the principe that mandamus cannot "e used to enforce
contractua o"i#ations. Genera!, mandamus $i not ie to enforce pure! pri'ate contract ri#hts, and $i
not ie a#ainst an indi'idua uness some o"i#ation in the nature of a pu"ic or 3uasi=pu"ic dut! is
imposed. %he $rit is not appropriate to enforce a pri'ate ri#ht a#ainst an indi'idua.J %he $rit of
mandamus ies to enforce the e(ecution of an act, $hen, other$ise, Eustice $oud "e o"structedF and,
re#uar!, issues on! in cases reatin# to the pu"ic and to the #o'ernmentF hence, it is caed a
prero#ati'e $rit. %o preser'e its prero#ati'e character, mandamus is not used for the redress of pri'ate
$ron#s, "ut on! in matters reatin# to the pu"ic.
.oreo'er, an important principe foo$ed in the issuance of the $rit is that there shoud "e no pain,
speed! and ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of a$ other than the remed! of mandamus "ein#
in'oked. 4n other $ords, mandamus can "e issued on! in cases $here the usua modes of procedure and
forms of remed! are po$eress to a9ord reief. Athou#h cassi5ed as a e#a remed!, mandamus is
e3uita"e in its nature and its issuance is #enera! controed "! e3uita"e principes. 4ndeed, the #rant of
the $rit of mandamus ies in the sound discretion of the court.
There being a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the
production of the subject will, the remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of. +u&ce it to state
that respondent )ee acks a cause of action in his petition. %hus, the Court #rants the demurrer.
$. M-.-n- vs. T-66-, G.R. N. 1)1'"', Se6tem%e& 1!, 2""(
+ACTS, Petitioners 5ed "efore the R%C their Compaint for Rei'indicacion, Luietin# of %ite, and
6ama#es
>
a#ainst respondents ae#in# that the! are the o$ners of a parce of and $hich the! inherited
from Anastacio 6anao ;Anastacio<, $ho died intestate. 6urin# the ifetime of Anastacio, he had ao$ed
Consueo Paui# ;Consueo<, $ho $as married to Joa3uin Boncad, to "uid on and occup! the southern
portion of the su"Eect propert!. Anastacio and Consueo a#reed that the atter $oud 'acate the said and
at an! time that Anastacio and his heirs mi#ht need it.
Petitioners caimed that respondents, Consueos fami! mem"ers,
D
continued to occup! the su"Eect
propert! e'en after her death, aread! "uidin# their residences thereon usin# permanent materias.
Petitioners aso earned that respondents $ere caimin# o$nership o'er the su"Eect propert!. A'errin# that
the! aread! needed it, petitioners demanded that respondents 'acate the same. Respondents, ho$e'er,
refused to heed petitioners demand.
C
Petitioners referred their and dispute $ith respondents to the )upon# %a#apama!apa of Baran#a!
Annafunan 7est for conciiation. 6urin# the conciiation proceedin#s, respondents asserted that the!
o$ned the su"Eect propert! and presented documents ostensi"! supportin# their caim of o$nership.
%hus, petitioners $ere compeed to 5e "efore the R%C a Compaint to remo'e such coud from their tite
and dama#es.
ISSUE, 7,0 the respondent Eud#e committed #ra'e a"use of discretion in dismissin# the compaint of the
petitioners motu proprio, $hich $i Eustif! the issuance of a $rit of certiorari8
HELD, 0o.An action for decarator! reief shoud "e 5ed "! a person interested under a deed, a $i, a
contract or other $ritten instrument, and $hose ri#hts are a9ected "! a statute, an e(ecuti'e order, a
re#uation or an ordinance. %he reief sou#ht under this remed! incudes the interpretation and
determination of the 'aidit! of the $ritten instrument and the Eudicia decaration of the parties ri#hts or
duties thereunder.
Petitions for decarator! reief are #o'erned "! Rue DG of the Rues of Court. %he R%C correct! made a
distinction "et$een the 5rst and the second para#raphs of +ection ?, Rue DG of the Rues of Court.
%he 5rst para#raph of +ection ?, Rue DG of the Rues of Court, descri"es the #enera circumstances in
$hich a person ma! 5e a petition for decarator! reief, to $it:
Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are
afected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may,
beore breach or violation thereo, bring an action in the appropriate !egional "rial #ourt to determine any
$uestion o construction or validity arising, and or a declaration o his rights or duties, thereunder.
As the afore=3uoted pro'ision states, a petition for decarator! reief under the 5rst para#raph of +ection ?,
Rue DG ma! "e "rou#ht "efore the appropriate R%C. +ection ?, Rue DG of the Rues of Court further
pro'ides in its second para#raph that:
An action or the reormation o an instrument, to $uiet title to real property or remove clouds thererom,
or to consolidate ownership under Article %&'( o the #ivil #ode, may be brought under this !ule.
%he second para#raph of +ection ?, Rue DG of the Rues of Court speci5ca! refers to ;?< an action for the
reformation of an instrument, reco#ni2ed under Artices ?GA@ to ?GD@ of the Ci'i CodeF ;>< an action to
3uiet tite, authori2ed "! Artices BCD to B8? of the Ci'i CodeF and ;G< an action to consoidate o$nership
re3uired "! Artice ?D0C of the Ci'i Code in a sae $ith a ri#ht to repurchase. %hese three remedies are
considered simiar to decarator! reief "ecause the! aso resut in the adEudication of the e#a ri#hts of the
iti#ants, often $ithout the need of e(ecution to carr! the Eud#ment into e9ect.
4t is important to note that +ection ?, Rue DG of the Rues of Court does not cate#orica! re3uire that an
action to 3uiet tite "e 5ed "efore the R%C. 4t repeated! uses the $ord *ma!* that an action for 3uietin#
of tite *ma! "e "rou#ht under ItheJ Rue* on petitions for decarator! reief, and a person desirin# to 5e a
petition for decarator! reief *ma! ( ( ( "rin# an action in the appropriate Re#iona %ria Court.* %he use of
the $ord *ma!* in a statute denotes that the pro'ision is mere! permissi'e and indicates a mere
possi"iit!, an opportunit! or an option.
4n contrast, the mandator! pro'ision of the Judiciar! Reor#ani2ation Act of ?@80, as amended, uses the
$ord *sha* and e(picit! re3uires the .%C to e(ercise e(cusi'e ori#ina Eurisdiction o'er a ci'i actions
$hich in'o'e tite to or possession of rea propert! $here the assessed 'aue does not e(ceed P>0,000.00,
thus:
+ection GG. Jurisdiction of .etropoitan %ria Courts, .unicipa %ria Courts and .unicipa Circuit %ria Courts
in Ci'i Cases..etropoitan %ria Courts, .unicipa %ria Courts and .unicipa Circuit %ria Courts sha
e(ercise:
( ( ( (
;G< /(cusi'e ori#ina Eurisdiction in a ci'i actions $hich in'o'e tite to, possession of, rea propert!, or
an! interest therein $here the assessed 'aue of the propert! or interest therein does not e(ceed %$ent!
thousand pesos ;P>0,000.00< or, in ci'i actions in .etro .ania, $here such assessed 'aue does not
e(ceeds :ift! thousand pesos ;PA0,000.00< e(cusi'e of interest, dama#es of $hate'er kind, attorne!s
fees, iti#ation e(penses and costs: ( ( ( ;/mphasis ours.<
As found "! the R%C, the assessed 'aue of the su"Eect propert! as stated in %a( 6ecaration 0o. 0>=
B8G8D is on!PB?0.00F therefore, petitioners Compaint in'o'in# tite to and possession of the said
propert! is $ithin the e(cusi'e ori#ina Eurisdiction of the .%C, not the R%C.
:urthermore, an action for decarator! reief presupposes that there has "een no actua "reach of the
instruments in'o'ed or of ri#hts arisin# thereunder. +ince the purpose of an action for decarator! reief is
to secure an authoritati'e statement of the ri#hts and o"i#ations of the parties under a statute, deed, or
contract for their #uidance in the enforcement thereof, or compiance there$ith, and not to sette issues
arisin# from an ae#ed "reach thereof, it ma! "e entertained on! "efore the "reach or 'ioation of the
statute, deed, or contract to $hich it refers. A petition for decarator! reief #i'es a practica remed! for
endin# contro'ersies that ha'e not reached the state $here another reief is immediate! a'aia"eF and
suppies the need for a form of action that $i set contro'ersies at rest "efore the! ead to a repudiation of
o"i#ations, an in'asion of ri#hts, and a commission of $ron#s.
7here the a$ or contract has aread! "een contra'ened prior to the 5in# of an action for decarator!
reief, the courts can no on#er assume Eurisdiction o'er the action. 4n other $ords, a court has no more
Eurisdiction o'er an action for decarator! reief if its su"Eect has aread! "een infrin#ed or trans#ressed
"efore the institution of the action.
4n the present case, petitioners Compaint for 3uietin# of tite $as 5ed after petitioners aread! demanded
and respondents refused to 'acate the su"Eect propert!. 4n fact, said Compaint $as 5ed on! su"se3uent
to the atters e(press caim of o$nership o'er the su"Eect propert! "efore the )upon# %a#apama!apa, in
direct chaen#e to petitioners tite.
+ince petitioners a'erred in the Compaint that the! had aread! "een depri'ed of the possession of their
propert!, the proper remed! for them is the 5in# of an accion pu"iciana or an accion rei'indicatoria, not a
case for decarator! reief. An accion pu"iciana is a suit for the reco'er! of possession, 5ed one !ear after
the occurrence of the cause of action or from the una$fu $ithhodin# of possession of the reat!. An
accion rei'indicatoria is a suit that has for its o"Eect ones reco'er! of possession o'er the rea propert! as
o$ner.
*.7 P.-nte&s Deve.6ment %-n8 vs. J-mes Ng, et. -.., G.R. N. 1)!$$*, M-1 $, 2"1"
+-9ts, James 0# and his "rother Anthon! ;respondents< o"tained oans from petitioner amountin# to
P>A,000,000.00 to secure $hich the! mort#a#ed t$o parces of and situated in +an :rancisco de .onte,
Lue2on Cit!. Respondents faied to sette their oan o"i#ation. 1ence, petitioner instituted e(traEudicia
forecosure of the mort#a#e "efore 0otar! Pu"ic +tephen M. %aaa. %he hi#hest "idder at the auction sae
$as petitioner to $hich $as issued a Certi5cate of +ae that $as re#istered $ith the Re#ister of 6eeds of
Lue2on Cit!. As respondents faied to redeem the mort#a#e $ithin one !ear, petitioner 5ed on June >D,
>00?, an ex)partepetition for the issuance of a $rit of possession.
4n the meantime, respondents instituted an action for Annument of Certi5cate of +ae, Promissor!
0ote and 6eed of .ort#a#e, raNed to R%C=LC, Branch >>? $hich issued a $rit of preiminar! inEunction
restrainin# petitioner from consoidatin# its tite to the properties and committin# an! act of dispossession
that $oud defeat respondents ri#ht of o$nership. R%C=LC, Branch CC denied the issuance of a $rit of
possession in this $ise. Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the decision ha'in# "een denied it 5ed,
"efore this Court, the present petition for re'ie$ on certiorari on pure 3uestions of a$.
Iss5e, 7,0 petitioner is entited to the $rit of possession
He.:, 4t is setted that 3uestions re#ardin# the 'aidit! of a mort#a#e or its forecosure as $e as the sae
of the propert! co'ered "! the mort#a#e cannot "e raised as #round to den! the issuance of a $rit of
possession. An! such 3uestions must "e determined in a su"se3uent proceedin# as in fact, herein
respondents commenced an action for Annument of Certi5cate of +ae, Promissor! 0ote and 6eed of
.ort#a#e.
+ince respondents faied to redeem the mort#a#e $ithin the re#ementar! period, entitement to
the $rit of possession "ecomes a matter of ri#ht and the issuance thereof is mere! a ministeria function.
%he Eud#e to $hom an appication for a $rit of possession is 5ed need not ook into the 'aidit! of
the mort#a#e or the manner of its forecosure. Unti the forecosure sae is annued, the issuance of the
$rit of possession is ministeria.
4n fact, e'en durin# the period of redemption, the purchaser is entited as of ri#ht to a $rit of
possession pro'ided a "ond is posted to indemnif! the de"tor in case the forecosure sae is sho$n to ha'e
"een conducted $ithout comp!in# $ith the re3uirements of the a$. .ore so $hen, as in the present case,
the redemption period has e(pired and o$nership is 'ested in the purchaser.
%he defautin# mort#a#or is not $ithout an! e(pedient remed!, ho$e'er. :or under +ection 8 of Act
G?GA, as amended "! Act B??8, it can 5e $ith the court $hich issues the $rit of possession a petition for
canceation of the $rit $ithin G0 da!s after the purchaser=mort#a#ee $as #i'en possession.
!.7 M-&te.in vs. N-tin-. Hme M&tg-ge +in-n9e C&6&-tin, G.R. N. 1*"2"), J5ne '", 2"")
+-9ts, Petitioners ae#ed that the! o"tained housin# oans from respondents $ho direct! reeased the
proceeds thereof to the su"di'ision de'eoper, +heter Phiippines, 4nc. ;+heter<. 1o$e'er, +heter faied to
compete the su"di'ision accordin# to its representations and the su"di'ision pan. %he! $ere thus
compeed to spend their o$n resources to impro'e the su"di'ision roads and ae!s, and to insta
indi'idua $ater faciities. Respondents, on the other hand, faied to ensure +heters competion of the
su"di'ision. 4nstead, respondents i#nored their ri#ht to suspend amorti2ation pa!ments for +heters
faiure to compete the su"di'ision, char#ed interests and penaties on their outstandin# oans, threatened
to forecose their mort#a#es and initiated forecosure proceedin#s a#ainst petitioner Rafae .arteino.
1ence, the! 5ed a petition for decarator! reief and prohi"ition $ith ur#ent pra!er for the issuance of a
temporar! restrainin# order andKor preiminar! inEunction 5ed "efore the R%C of Caoocan Cit!, "!
petitioners a#ainst the 0ationa 1ome .ort#a#e :inance Corporation ;01.:C< and the 1ome 6e'eopment
.utua :und ;16.:<, herein respondents, and +heri9 A"erto A. Castio pra!ed that respondents "e
restrained from forecosin# their mort#a#es.
%he R%C set the preiminar! inEunction hearin#, "ut said order, incudin# the summons and petition,
$ere ser'ed on! on the 01.:C and +heri9 Castio. 6espite notice, the 01.:C faied to attend the
preiminar! inEunction hearin#. ,n Ju! @, ?@@8, the R%C ordered that a $rit of preiminar! inEunction "e
issued restrainin# the respondents from forecosin# the mort#a#es on petitioners houses. %he $rit $as
issued on Ju! ?B, ?@@8.
4n dismissin# the case, the R%C rued that the issue of non=competion of the su"di'ision shoud ha'e
"een "rou#ht "efore the 1)URB. 4t aso rued that no Eudicia decaration can "e made "ecause the petition
$as 'a#ue. %he R%C assumed that the su"Eect of the petition $as Repu"ic Act 0o. 8A0?or the 1ousin#
)oan Condonation Act of ?@@8 $hich $as cited "! petitioners. But the R%C pointed out that petitioners
faied to state $hich section of the a$ a9ected their ri#hts and needed Eudicia decaration. %he R%C aso
noted that, as stated "! petitioners, respondents sti forecosed their mort#a#es, a "reach of said a$
$hich rendered the petition for decarator! reief improper. %he proper remed! $as an ordinar! ci'i action,
the R%C concuded.
Iss5es:?.< 7,0 the dismissa of the decarator! reief is proper8
>.< 7,0 the decarator! reief can "e con'erted to an ordinar! action8
He.:, ?.< -es. under +ection ?, Rue DG, a person must 5e a petition for decarator! reief "efore "reach or
'ioation of a deed, $i, contract, other $ritten instrument, statute, e(ecuti'e order, re#uation, ordinance
or an! other #o'ernmenta re#uation. 4n this case, the petitioners had stated in their petition that
respondents assessed them interest and penaties on their outstanding loans, initiated forecosure
proceedin#s a#ainst petitioner Rafae .arteino as e'idenced "! the notice of e(tra=Eudicia sae

and
threatened to forecose the mort#a#es of the other petitioners, a in disre#ard of their ri#ht to suspend
pa!ment to +heter for its faiure to compete the su"di'ision. +aid statements cear! mean one thin#:
petitioners had aread! suspended pa!in# their amorti2ation pa!ments. Unfortunate!, their actua
suspension of pa!ments defeated the purpose of the action to secure an authoritati'e decaration of their
supposed ri#ht to suspend pa!ment, for their #uidance. %hus, the R%C coud no on#er assume Eurisdiction
o'er the action for decarator! reief "ecause its su"Eect initia! unspeci5ed, no$ identi5ed as P.6. 0o. @AC
and reied upon == correct! or other$ise == "! petitioners, and assumed "! the R%C to "e Rep. Act 0o. 8A0?,
$as "reached "efore 5in# the action. As $e said in "ambunting, Jr. v. *umabat:
. . . %he purpose of the action Ifor decarator! reiefJ is to secure an authoritati'e statement of the ri#hts
and o"i#ations of the parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc. for their #uidance in its enforcement or
compiance and not to sette issues arisin# from its ae#ed "reach. 4t ma! "e entertained on! "efore the
"reach or 'ioation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to $hich it refers. 7here the a$ or contract has
aread! "een contra'ened prior to the 5in# of an action for decarator! reief, the court can no on#er
assume Eurisdiction o'er the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch as a cause of action has
aread! accrued in fa'or of one or the other part!, there is nothin# more for the court to e(pain or carif!
short of a Eud#ment or 5na order.
%he Court cannot a#ree, ho$e'er, $ith the R%Cs ruin# that the 'a#ueness of the petition
furnished additiona Eusti5cation for its dismissa. 4f the petition for decarator! reief and prohi"ition $as
'a#ue, dismissa is not proper "ecause the respondents ma! ask for more particuars.
BC
0ota"!, the
01.:C ne'er assaied the supposed 'a#ueness of the petition in its motion to dismiss nor did it ask for
more particuars "efore 5in# its ans$er. 7hen the R%C aso set the pre=tria conference and ordered the
parties to su"mit their pre=tria "riefs, it e'en noted that the issues had aread! "een Eoined.
B8
Petitioners
fair! stated aso the necessar! utimate facts, e(cept that their action for decarator! reief $as improper.
>.< 0o. Athou#h +ection D, Rue DG mi#ht ao$ such course of action, the respondents did not ar#ue the
point, and $e note petitioners faiure to specif! the ordinar! action the! desired. 7e aso cannot
reasona"! assume that the! no$ seek annument of the mort#a#es. :urther, the records support the
Court of Appeas 5ndin# that this issue $as not raised "efore the R%C. %he Court of Appeas therefore
proper! refused to entertain the issue as it cannot "e raised for the 5rst time on appea.
Assumin# the Court can aso treat the Petition for 6ecarator! Reief and Prohi"ition as an action for
prohi"ition, $e must sti hod that prohi"ition is improper. Prohi"ition is a remed! a#ainst proceedin#s that
are $ithout or in e(cess of Eurisdiction, or $ith #ra'e a"use of discretion, there "ein# no appea or other
pain, speed! ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of a$. But here, the petition did not e'en impute
ack of Eurisdiction or #ra'e a"use of discretion committed "! respondents and +heri9 Castio re#ardin#
the forecosure proceedin#s
(.7 Re65%.i9 vs. O%&e9i: III, #!2 SCRA 11#
+ACTS, ,Cipriano ,r"ecido 444 married )ad! .!ros .. Oianue'a at the United Church of Christ in the
Phiippines in )am=an, ,2amis Cit!. %heir marria#e $as "essed $ith a son and a dau#hter, Hristo9er
+im"ortri2 O. ,r"ecido and )ad! Him"er! O. ,r"ecido. 4n ?@8D, Ciprianos $ife eft for the United +tates
"rin#in# aon# their son Hristo9er. A fe$ !ears ater, Cipriano disco'ered that his $ife had "een naturai2ed
as an American citi2en. +ometime in >000, Cipriano earned from his son that his $ife had o"tained a
di'orce decree and then married a certain 4nnocent +tane!.
Cipriano thereafter 5ed $ith the tria court a petition for authorit! to remarr! in'okin# Para#raph > of
Artice >D of the :ami! Code. 0o opposition $as 5ed. :indin# merit in the petition, the court #ranted the
same. %he Repu"ic, herein petitioner, throu#h the ,&ce of the +oicitor Genera ;,+G<, sou#ht
reconsideration "ut it $as denied.
4n this petition, the ,+G raises a pure 3uestion of a$
ISSUE, 7,0 the petition 5ed is a decarator! reief8
HELD, -es. At the outset, $e note that the petition for authorit! to remarr! 5ed "efore the tria court
actua! constituted a petition for decarator! reief. 4n this connection, +ection ?, Rue DG of the Rues of
Court pro'ides:
+ection ?. +ho may ,le petitionAn! person interested under a deed, $i, contract or other $ritten
instrument, or $hose ri#hts are a9ected "! a statute, e(ecuti'e order or re#uation, ordinance, or other
#o'ernmenta re#uation ma!, "efore "reach or 'ioation thereof, "rin# an action in the appropriate
Re#iona %ria Court to determine an! 3uestion of construction or 'aidit! arisin#, and for a decaration of
his ri#hts or duties, thereunder.
%he re3uisites of a petition for decarator! reief are: ;?< there must "e a Eusticia"e contro'ers!F ;><
the contro'ers! must "e "et$een persons $hose interests are ad'erseF ;G< that the part! seekin# the reief
has a e#a interest in the contro'ers!F and ;B< that the issue is ripe for Eudicia determination.
%his case concerns the appica"iit! of Para#raph > of Artice >D to a marria#e "et$een t$o :iipino
citi2ens $here one ater ac3uired aien citi2enship, o"tained a di'orce decree, and remarried $hie in the
U.+.A. %he interests of the parties are aso ad'erse, as petitioner representin# the +tate asserts its dut! to
protect the institution of marria#e $hie respondent, a pri'ate citi2en, insists on a decaration of his
capacit! to remarr!. Respondent, pra!in# for reief, has e#a interest in the contro'ers!. %he issue raised is
aso ripe for Eudicia determination inasmuch as $hen respondent remarries, iti#ation ensues and puts into
3uestion the 'aidit! of his second marria#e.
1".7 D-&i vs. Misn 1!* SCRA )#
+ACTS, 4n ?@8D, Cor! A3uino promu#ated Procamation 0o. G, *6/C)AR40G A 0A%4,0A) P,)4C- %,
4.P)/./0% %1/ R/:,R.+ .A06A%/6 B- %1/ P/,P)/..., the mandate of the peope to Compete!
reor#ani2e the #o'ernment. 4n Januar! ?@8C, she promu#ated /, ?>C, *R/,RGA04M40G %1/ .404+%R- ,:
:40A0C/*. Amon# other o&ces, /(ecuti'e ,rder 0o. ?>C pro'ided for the reor#ani2ation of the Bureau of
Customs and prescri"ed a ne$ sta&n# pattern therefor. 4n :e"ruar! ?@8C, a "rand ne$ constitution $as
adopted. ,n Januar! ?@88, incum"ent Commissioner of Customs +a'ador .ison issued a .emorandum, in
the nature of *Guideines on the 4mpementation of Reor#ani2ation /(ecuti'e ,rders,* prescri"in# the
procedure in personne pacement. 4t aso pro'ided that "! :e"ruar! ?@88, a empo!ees co'ered "! /,
?>C and the #race period e(tended to the Bureau of Customs "! the President on reor#ani2ation sha "e:
a< informed of their re=appointment, or "< o9ered another position in the same department or a#enc!, or c<
informed of their termination. .ison addressed se'era notices to 'arious Customs o&cias statin# that
the! sha continue to perform their respecti'e duties and responsi"iities in a hod=o'er capacit!, and that
those incum"ents $hose positions are not carried in the ne$ reor#ani2ation pattern, or $ho are not re=
appointed, sha "e deemed separated from the ser'ice. A tota of G@B o&cias and empo!ees of the
Bureau of Customs $ere #i'en indi'idua notices of separation. %he! 5ed appeas $ith the C+C. ,n June
?@88, the C+C promu#ated its ruin# orderin# the reinstatement of the >C@ empo!ees, the >C@ pri'ate
respondents in G.R. 0o. 8AG?0. Commissioner .ison, represented "! the +oicitor Genera, 5ed a motion
for reconsideration, $hich $as denied. Commissioner .ison instituted certiorari proceedin#s. ,n June ?0,
?@88, Repu"ic Act 0o. DDAD, *A0 AC% %, PR,%/C% %1/ +/CUR4%- ,: %/0UR/ ,: C4O4) +/RO4C/ ,::4C/R+
A06 /.P),-//+ 40 %1/ 4.P)/./0%A%4,0 ,: G,O/R0./0% R/,RGA04MA%4,0,* $as si#ned into a$
containin# the pro'ision:
+ec. @. A o&cers and empo!ees $ho are found "! the Ci'i +er'ice Commission to ha'e "een
separated in 'ioation of the pro'isions of this Act, sha "e ordered reinstated or reappointed as the case
ma! "e $ithout oss of seniorit! and sha "e entited to fu pa! for the period of separation. Uness aso
separated for cause, a o&cers and empo!ees, incudin# casuas and temporar! empo!ees, $ho ha'e
"een separated pursuant to reor#ani2ation sha, if entited thereto, "e paid the appropriate separation pa!
and retirement and other "ene5ts(((
,n June >G, ?@88, Benedicto Amasa and 7iiam 6ionisio, customs e(aminers appointed "!
Commissioner .ison pursuant to the ostensi"e reor#ani2ation su"Eect of this contro'ers!, petitioned the
Court to contest the 'aidit! of the statute. ,n ,cto"er >?, ?@88, thirt!=5'e more Customs o&cias $hom
the Ci'i +er'ice Commission had ordered reinstated "! its June G0, ?@88 Resoution 5ed their o$n petition
to compe the Commissioner of Customs to comp! $ith the said Resoution. Cesar 6ario $as one of the
6eput! Commissioners of the Bureau of Customs unti his reief on orders of Commissioner .ison on
Januar! >D, ?@88. 4n essence, he 3uestions the e#ait! of his dismissa, $hich he ae#es $as upon the
authorit! of +ection A@ of /(ecuti'e ,rder 0o. ?>C ;+/C. A@. 0e$ +tructure and Pattern. Upon appro'a of
this /(ecuti'e ,rder, the o&cers and empo!ees of the .inistr! sha, in a hodo'er capacit!, continue to
perform their respecti'e duties and responsi"iities and recei'e the correspondin# saaries and "ene5ts
uness in the meantime the! are separated from #o'ernment ser'ice pursuant to /(ecuti'e ,rder 0o. ?C
;?@8D< or Artice 444 of the :reedom Constitution. 4ncum"ents $hose positions are not incuded therein or
$ho are not reappointed sha "e deemed separated from the ser'ice. %hose separated from the ser'ice
sha recei'e the retirement "ene5ts to $hich the! ma! "e entited
ISSUE, 7,0 the petition for certiorari $as 'aid8
HELD, -es. %he ur#in#s in G.R. 0os. 8AGGA and 8AG?0, that the Ci'i +er'ice Commission's Resoution
dated June G0, ?@88 had attained a character of 5nait! for faiure of Commissioner .ison to app! for
Eudicia re'ie$ or ask for reconsideration seasona"! under Presidentia 6ecree 0o. 80C, or under Repu"ic
Act 0o. DDAD, or under the Constitution, are ike$ise reEected. %he records sho$ that the Bureau of
Customs had unti Ju! ?A, ?@88 to ask for reconsideration or come to this Court pursuant to +ection G@ of
Presidentia 6ecree 0o. 80C. %he records ike$ise sho$ that the +oicitor Genera 5ed a motion for
reconsideration on Ju! ?A, ?@88. %he Ci'i +er'ice Commission issued its Resoution den!in#
reconsideration on +eptem"er >0, ?@88F a cop! of this Resoution $as recei'ed "! the Bureau on
+eptem"er >G, ?@88. 1ence the Bureau had unti ,cto"er >G, ?@88 to ee'ate the matter on certiorari to
this Court. +ince the Bureau's petition $as 5ed on ,cto"er >0, ?@88, it $as 5ed on time.
%he Court reEected the contentions that the Bureau's petition ;in G.R. 8AG?0< raises no Eurisdictiona
3uestions, and is therefore "ereft of an! "asis as a petition for certiorari under Rue DA of the Rues of
Court. 7e 5nd that the 3uestions raised in Commissioner .ison's petition ;in G.R. 8AG?0< are, indeed,
proper for certiorari, if "! *Eurisdictiona 3uestions* $e mean 3uestions ha'in# to do $ith *an indi9erent
disre#ard of the a$, ar"itrariness and caprice, or omission to $ei#h pertinent considerations, a decision
arri'ed at $ithout rationa dei"eration, as distin#uished from 3uestions that re3uire *di##in# into the
merits and unearthin# errors of Eud#ment $hich is the o&ce, on the other hand, of re'ie$ under Rue BA of
the said Rues. 7hat cannot "e denied is the fact that the act of the Ci'i +er'ice Commission of reinstatin#
hundreds of Customs empo!ees Commissioner .ison had separated, has impications not on! on the
entire reor#ani2ation process decreed no ess than "! the Pro'isiona Constitution, "ut on the Phiippine
"ureaucrac! in #eneraF these impications are of such a ma#nitude that it cannot "e said that assumin#
that the Ci'i +er'ice Commission erred the Commission committed a pain *error of Eud#ment*
thatAratuc sa!s cannot "e corrected "! the e(traordinar! remed! of certiorari or an! specia ci'i action.
7e rea&rm the teachin# of Aratuc as re#ards recourse to this Court $ith respect to ruin#s of the Ci'i
+er'ice Commission $hich is that Eud#ments of the Commission ma! "e "rou#ht to the +upreme Court
throu#h certiorari aone, under Rue DA of the Rues of Court.
4n Aratuc $e decared:
4t is once e'ident from these constitutiona and statutor! modi5cations that there is a de5nite
tendenc! to enhance and in'i#orate the roe of the Commission on /ections as the independent
constitutiona "od! char#ed $ith the safe#uardin# of free, peacefu and honest eections. %he
framers of the ne$ Constitution must "e presumed to ha'e de5nite kno$ed#e of $hat it means to
make the decisions, orders and ruin#s of the Commission *su"Eect to re'ie$ "! the +upreme Court'.
And since instead of maintainin# that pro'ision intact, it ordained that the Commission's actuations
"e instead '"rou#ht to the +upreme Court on certiorari*, 7e cannot insist that there $as no intent
to chan#e the nature of the remed!, considerin# that the imited scope of certiorari, compared to a
re'ie$, is $e kno$n in remedia a$.
4t shoud aso "e noted that under the ne$ Constitution, as under the ?@CG Charter, *an! decision, order,
or ruin# of each Commission ma! "e "rou#ht to the +upreme Court on certiorari,* $hich, as Aratuc tes
us, *technica! connotes somethin# ess than sa!in# that the same 'sha "e su"Eect to re'ie$ "! the
+upreme Court,' * $hich in turn su##ests an appea "! petition for re'ie$ under Rue BA. %herefore, our
Eurisdiction o'er cases emanatin# from the Ci'i +er'ice Commission is imited to compaints of ack or
e(cess of Eurisdiction or #ra'e a"use of discretion tantamount to ack or e(cess of Eurisdiction, compaints
that Eustif! certiorari under Rue DA.
7hie Repu"ic Act 0o. DDAD states that Eud#ments of the Commission are *5na and e(ecutor!* and hence,
unappeaa"e, under Rue DA, certiorari precise! ies in the a"sence of an appea.
Accordin#!, $e accept Commissioner .ison petition ;G.R. 0o. 8AG?0< $hich cear! char#es the Ci'i
+er'ice Commission $ith #ra'e a"use of discretion, a proper su"Eect of certiorari, athou#h it ma! not ha'e
so stated in e(picit terms.
11. ARATUC ;S. COMELEC, )) SCRA 2$1
+ACTS, Petition in G. R. 0os. )=B@C0A=0@ for certiorari $ith restrainin# order and preiminar! inEunction
5ed "! si( ;D< independent candidates for representati'es to tie 4nterim Batasan# Pam"ansa $ho had
Eoined to#ether under the "anner of the Hunsensi!a n# Ba!an $hich, ho$e'er, $as not re#istered as a
poitica part! or #roup under the ?@CD /ection Code, P.6. 0o. ?>@D, referred to as petitioners, to re'ie$
the decision of the respondent Commission on /ection ;Comeec< reso'in# their appea from the ,f the
respondent Re#iona Board of Can'asses for Re#ion P44 re#ardin# the can'ass of the resuts of the eection
in said re#ion for representati'es to the 4.B.P. hed on Apri C, ?@C8. +imiar petition in G.R. 0os. )B@C?C=>?,
for certiorari $ith restrainin# order and preiminar! inEunction 5ed "! )inan# .andan#an, a"o a candidate
for representati'e in the same eection in that re#ion, to re'ie$ the decision of the Comeec decarin#
respondent /rnesto Rodan as entited to "e procaimed as one of the ei#ht $inners in said eection.
%he instant proceedin#s are se3ues of ,ur decision in G.R. 0o. )= B80@C, $herein %omatic Aratuc et a.
sou#ht the suspension of the can'ass then "ein# undertaken "! respondent dent Board in Cota"ato cit!
and in $hich can'ass, the returns in ?@DD out of a tota of B,?0C 'otin# centers in the $hoe re#ion had
aread! "een can'assed sho$in# partia resuts.
A super'enin# pane headed "! C,./)/C 1on= Oenancio +. 6u3ue, had conducted of the compaints of the
petitioners therein of ae#ed irre#uarities in the eection records in a the 'otin# centers in the $hoe
pro'ince of )anao de +ur, the $hoe Cit! of .ara$i, ei#ht ;8< to$ns of )anao de 0orte, , se'en ;C< to$ns
in .a#uindanao,, , ten ;?0< to$ns in 0orth Cota"ato, and ee'en ;??< to$ns in +utan Hudarat,President
Luirino and %acuron#, "! reason for $hich, petitioners had asked that the returns from said 'otin# centers
"e e(cuded from the can'ass. Before the start of the hearin#s, the can'ass $as suspended "ut after the
super'isor! pane presented its report, on .a! ?A, ?@C8, the Comeec ifted its order of suspension and
directed the resumption of the can'ass to "e done in .ania. %his order $as the one assaied in this Court.
7e issued a restrainin# order.
After hearin# the parties, the Court ao$ed the resumption of the can'ass "ut issued the foo$in#
#uideines to "e o"ser'ed .
%hus respondent Board proceeded $ith the can'ass, $ith the herein petitioners presentin# o"Eections,
most of them supported "! the report of hand$ritin# and 5n#er print e(perts $ho had e(amined the 'otin#
records and ists of 'oters in 8C8 'otin# centers, out of >,C00 $hich the! speci5ed in their compaints or
petitions in /ection Cases C8=8, C8=@, C8=?0, C8=?? and C8?> in the Comeec. 4n re#ard to A0? 'otin#
centers, the records cf. $hich, consistin# of the 'oters ists and 'otin# records $ere not a'aia"e= and
coud not "e "rou#ht to .ania, petitions asked that the resuts therein "e compete! e(cuded from the
can'ass.
,n 6ecem"er ??, ?@C8, the Comeec re3uired the parties *to 5e their respecti'e $ritten comments on the
reports the! sha periodica! recei'e from the 0B4=Comeec team of 5n#er=print and si#nature e(perts
$ithin the ine(tendi"e period of se'en ;C< da!s from their receipt thereof*. Accordin# to counse for
Aratuc, et a., *Petitioners su"mitted their 'arious comments on the report B, the principa #ist of $hich
$as that it $oud appear uniform! in a the reports su"mitted "! the Comeec=0B4 e(perts that the
re#istered 'oters $ere not the ones $ho 'oted as sho$n "! the fact that the thum"prints appearin# in
:orm ? $ere di9erent from the thum"prints of the 'oters in :orm A. * But the Comeec denied a motion of
petitioners askin# that the "aot "o(es correspondin# to the 'otin# centers the record of $hich are not
a'aia"e "e opened and that a date "e set $hen the statements of $itnesses referred to in the Au#ust G0,
?@C8 resoution $oud "e taken, on the #round that in its opinion, it $as no on#er necessar! to proceed
$ith such openin# of "aot "o(es and takin# of statements.
4t is ae#ed in the Aratuc petition that the Comeec committee #ra'e a"use of dicretion, amountin# to ack
of Eurisdiction.,n the other hand, the .andan#an petition su"mits that the Comeec comitted errors.
.%he Aratuc petition is e(press! predicated on the #round that respondent Comeec *committed #ra'e
a"use of discretion, amountin# to ack of Eurisdiction* in ei#ht speci5cations. ,n the other hand, the
.andan#an petition raises pure 3uestions of a$ and Eurisdiction. 4n other $ords, "oth petitions in'oked the
Court's certiorari Eurisdiction, not its appeate authorit! of re'ie$.
ISSUES,?. that it $as an error of a$ on the part of respondent Comeec to ha'e appied to the e(tant
circumstances hereof the ruin# of this Court in 6ia2 's. Comeec B> +CRA B>D instead of that of Bashier
's. Comeec BG +CRA >G8F
;>< that respondent Comeec e(ceeded its Eurisdiction and denied due process to petitioner .andan#an in
e(tendin# its in3uir! "e!ond the eection records of *the 8C8 'otin# centers e(amined "! the HB e(perts
and passed upon "! the Re#iona Board of Can'assers* and in e(cudin# from the can'ass the returns
sho$in# @0 to ?00 Q 'otin#, from 'otin# centers $here miitar! operations $ere "! the Arm! to "e #oin#
on, to the e(tent that said 'otin# centers had to "e transferred to the po"aciones the same "ein# "!
e'idence.
HELD,?.4t must "e made cear that the 6ia2 and Bashier ruin#s are not mutua! e(cusi'e of each other,
each "ein# an out#ro$th of the "asic rationae of statistica impro"a"iit! aid do$n in )a#um"a! 's.
Comeec and , ?D +CRA ?CA. 7hether the! "e app! to#ether or separate! or $hich of them "e appied
depends on the situation on hand. 4n the factua miieu of the instant case as found "! the Comeec, 7e
see no co#ent reason, and petitioner has not sho$n an!, $h! returns in 'otin# centers sho$in# that the
'otes of the candidate o"tainin# hi#hest num"er of 'otes of the candidate o"tainin# the hi#hest num"er of
'otes e(ceeds the hi#hest possi"e num"er of 'aid 'otes cast therein shoud not "e deemed as spurious
and manufactured Eust "ecause the tota num"er of e(cess 'otes in said 'otin# centers $ere not more than
B0 Q. +ure!, this is not the occasion, consider the historica antecedents reati'e to the hi#h!
3uestiona"e manner in $hich eections ha'e "een "ad in the past in the pro'inces herein in'o'ed, of
$hich the Court has Eudicia notice as attested "! its numerous decisions in cases in'o'in# practica!
e'er! such eection, of the Court to mo'e a $hit "ack from the standards it has enunciated in those
decisions.
>. 4n re#ard to the Eurisdictiona and due process points raised "! herein petitioner, it is of decisi'e
importance to "ear in mind that under +ection ?D8 of the Re'ised /ection Code of ?@C8, *the Commission
;on /ections< sha ha'e direct contro and super'ision on o'er the "oard of can'assers* and that reated!,
+ection ?CA of the same Code pro'ides that it *sha "e the soe Eud#e of a pre=procamation
contro'ersies.* 7hie nomina!, the procedure of "rin#in# to the Commission o"Eections to the actuations
of "oards of can'assers has "een 3uite oose! referred to in certain 3uarters, e'en "! the Commission and
"! this Court, such as in the #uideines of .a! >G,?@C8 3uoted earier in this opinion, as an appea, the fact
of the matter is that the authorit! of the Commission in re'ie$in# such actuations does not sprin# from
an! appeate Eurisdiction conferred "! an! speci5c pro'ision of a$, for there is none such pro'ision
an!$here in the /ection Code, "ut from the penar! prero#ati'e of direct contro and super'ision endo$ed
to it "! the a"o'e=3uoted pro'isions of +ection ?D8. And in administrati'e a$, it is a too $e setted
postuate to need an! supportin# citation here, that a superior "od! or o&ce ha'in# super'ision and
contro o'er another ma! do direct! $hat the atter is supposed to do or ou#ht to ha'e done.
Conse3uent!, an!thin# said in -ucman vs. Dimaporo, GG +CRA G8C, cited "! petitioner, to the contrar!
not$ithstandin#, 7e cannot faut respondent Comeec for its ha'in# e(tended its in3uir! "e!ond that
undertaken "! the Board of Can'ass ,n the contrar!, it must "e stated that Comeec correct! and
commenda"! asserted its statutor! authorit! "orn of its en'isa#ed constitutiona duties 'is=a='is the
preser'ation of the purit! of eections and eectora processes and p in doin# $hat petitioner it shoud not
ha'e done. 4ncidenta!, it cannot "e said that Comeec $ent further than e'en $hat Aratuc et a. ha'e
asked, since said compaints had impu#ned from the outset not on! the returns from the 8C8 'otin#
centers e(amined "! their e(perts "ut a those mentioned in their compaints in the eection cases 5ed
ori#ina! $ith the Comeec enumerated in the openin# statements hereof, hence respondent Comeec had
that much 5ed to $ork on.
%he same principe shoud app! in respect to the ruin# of the Commission re#ardin# the 'otin# centers
a9ected "! miitar! operations. 4t took co#ni2ance of the fact, not considered "! the "oard of can'ass, that
said 'otin# centers had "een transferred to the po"aciones. And, if on! for purposes of pre=procamation
proceedin#s, 7e are persuaded it did not constitute a denia of due process for the Commission to ha'e
taken into account, $ithout the need or presentation of e'idence "! the parties, a matter so pu"ic!
notorious as the unsetted situation of peace and order in ocaities in the pro'inces herein in'o'ed that
their ma! perhaps "e taken Eudicia notice of, the same "ein# capa"e of un3uestiona"e demonstration.
;+ee ?, Rue ?>@<
4n this connection, 7e ma! as $e perhaps, sa! here as ater that re#retta"! 7e cannot, ho$e'er, #o
aon# $ith the 'ie$, e(pressed in the dissent of our respected Chief Justice, that from the fact that some of
the 'otin# centers had "een transferred to the po"aciones there is aread! su&cient "asis for Us to rue
that the Commission shoud ha'e aso su"Eected a the returns from the other 'otin# centers of the some
municipaities, if not pro'inces, to the same de#ree of scrutin! as in the former. %he maEorit! of the Court
fees that had the Commission done so, it $oud ha'e faen into the error "! petitioner .andan#an a"out
denia of due process, for it is reati'e! unsafe to dra$ ad'erse concusions as to the e(act conditions of
peace and order in those other 'otin# centers $ithout at ist some prima acie e'idence to re! on
considerin# that there is no ae#ation, much ess an! sho$in# at a that the 'otin# centers in 3uestion are
so cose to those e(cuded "! the Comeec on as to $arrant the inescapa"e concusion that the ree'ant
circumstances "! the Comeec as o"tainin# in the atter $ere 4dentica to those in the former.
12. ABEDES ;S. COURT O+ APPEALS, $'* SCRA 2*) <2""!7
+ACTS, +ometime in ?@@D, respondent Arci#a 5ed an action "efore the R%C of Pasi# Cit! a#ainst 7ifredo
P. A"edes, hus"and of herein petitioner /meinda O. A"edes, seekin# support for her dau#hter, 6anniee
Ann Arci#a.A 6ecision $as therein rendered, decarin# 7ifredo the natura father of 6aniee Ann. 7ifredo
$as simiar! ordered "! the R%C of Pasi# Cit! to support 6aniee Ann, $ith a 5(ed amount of P?0,000.00
per month.

)ater, a propert! co'ered "! %ransfer Certi5cate of %ite ;%C%< 0o. >@>?G@ $as disco'ered to "e
ae#ed! re#istered in the name of 7ifredo. %hus, the +heri9caused the re#istration of a 0otice of )e'!
on /(ecution on the disputed and, $ith the ,&ce of the Re#istr! of 6eeds for the Pro'ince of %arac, to
satisf! the Eud#ment. Upon notice of the same, petitioner 5ed a 0otice of %hird Part! Caim $ith the R%C
of Pasi#. Petitioner ae#ed that the propert! "eon#s e(cusi'e! to her, and 7ifredo had no present and
e(istin# ri#ht thereto. %herefore, it ma! not "e utii2ed to satisf! the Eud#ment rendered a#ainst her
hus"and 7ifredo.

0ot$ithstandin# the ad'erse caima 0otice of +heri9s +ae $as made announcin# the sae to the
pu"ic and to the hi#hest "idder of a the ri#hts, caims, and shares of 7ifredo in the propert!.
A##rie'ed, petitioner, represented "! her attorne!=in=fact 7ifredo, 5ed a Compaint for 4nEunction
$ith Pra!er for 7rit of Preiminar! 4nEunction and %emporar! Restrainin# ,rder and 6ama#es "efore the
R%C of %arac Cit!. 4n her Compaint, petitioner ae#ed that uness the sae at pu"ic auction is enEoined, she
$i stand to su9er permanent dama#e for the oss of her propert! $ithout 'aua"e consideration and in
'ioation of the process of a$. .

After due hearin#, on ?B ,cto"er >00G, the R%C of %arac Cit! issued a %emporar! Restrainin# ,rder.
4t $as con'inced that irrepara"e dama#e and inEur! to petitioner $oud resut, shoud respondent +heri9
Ron"erto B. Oaino proceed $ith the pu"ic auction of the propert!. :urther, the R%C conducted a hearin#
on the pra!er for the issuance of a 7rit of Preiminar! 4nEunction, and #ranted the same on C 0o'em"er
>00G, e9ecti'e! preser'in# the status $uo.

%he R%C of %arac Cit! opined that the propert! is petitioners parapherna propert!. As her
e(cusi'e propert!, it ma! not "e made ia"e for the o"i#ations of 7ifredo. ,ther$ise stated, the propert!
ma! not "e ia"e for the support $hich 7ifredo is o"i#ed to #i'e to 6aniee Ann.

4n so ruin# that the propert! is parapherna, the R%C of %arac Cit! auded to the decaration
appearin#, $hich states that the propert! descri"ed therein is re#istered in accordance $ith the pro'isions
of the Propert! Re#istration 6ecree in the name of /meinda O. A"edes, married to 7ifredo P.
A"edes. Citin# !ui. v. #ourt o Appeals,
I>GJ
the R%C of %arac Cit! reasoned that $hen the tite is in the
name of ( married to !, the phrase married to ! is mere! descripti'e of the persona status of the
o$ner.

%he R%C of %arac Cit! further e(pained that e'en assumin# that the propert! co'ered "! %C% 0o.
>@>?G@ is part of the conEu#a partnership, it ma! not "e hed ia"e for the support of 6aniee Ann $ho is
an ie#itimate chid of 7ifredo. 4t decared that the propert! re#ime of petitioner and 7ifredo is #o'erned
"! the Ci'i Code as the! $ere married on ?0 :e"ruar! ?@DD. Under Artice ?D?;A<
I>BJ
of the Ci'i Code, the
conEu#a partnership sha on! "e ia"e, inter alia, for the maintenance of the fami! and education of the
e#itimate chidren. %he support of ie#itimate chidren cannot "e char#ed to the conEu#a partnership.


,n >G 6ecem"er >00A, the Court of Appeas issued a 6ecision, re'ersin# and settin# aside the
appeaed ,rder and Resoution of the R%C of %arac Cit!.

%he appeate court hed:

4n this case, Ipetitioner /meinda O. A"edesJ had participated in the appea
proceedin#s. %hus, the caimed ack of Eurisdiction is inconsistent $ith her actuation "efore
Us. An e(amination of her appeees "rief e'en re'eas her reco#nition of ,ur
Eurisdiction. 7e o"ser'e that in her "rief she pra!ed for the dismissa of the appea and the
a&rmance of the appeaed decision. %his is certain! an ackno$ed#ment that 7e ha'e the
po$er to hear and reso'e the 3uestions raised in the appea.
1ence, the Petition "efore us 5ed under Rue DA of the Rues of Court.
ISSUE, 3ON pu"ic respondent has statutor! Eurisdiction o'er the su"Eect matter of the case.

HELD: A petition for certiorari under Rue DA is proper if a tri"una, "oard or o&cer e(ercisin#
Eudicia or 3uasi=Eudicia functions has acted $ithout or in e(cess of Eurisdiction or $ith #ra'e a"use
of discretion amountin# to ack or e(cess of Eurisdiction and there is no appea, or an! pain, speed!
and ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of a$. 1o$e'er, the proper remed! of petitioner from
the assaied 6ecision and Resoution of the Court of Appeas is an ordinar! appea to this Court via a
petition for re'ie$ under Rue BA and not a petition for certiorari under Rue DA. %o dra$ a
distinction, an appea "! petition for re'ie$ on certiorari under Rue BA is a continuation of the
Eud#ment compained of, $hie that under Rue DA is an ori#ina or independent action. 7e ha'e
underscored that the remed! of certiorari is not a su"stitute for ost appea. %he remedies of
appea and certiorari are mutua! e(cusi'e and not aternati'e or successi'e. 1ence, the specia
ci'i action for certiorari under Rue DA is not and cannot "e a su"stitute for an appea, $here the
atter remed! is a'aia"e. +uch a remed! $i not "e a cure for faiure to time! 5e a petition for
re'ie$ on certiorari under Rue BA. Rue BA is cear that decisions, 5na orders or resoutions of the
Court of Appeas in an! case, i.e., re#ardess of the nature of the action or proceedin#s in'o'ed,
ma! "e appeaed to this Court "! 5in# a petition for re'ie$, $hich $oud "e "ut a continuation of
the appeate process o'er the ori#ina case.
Under Rue BA, the re#ementar! period to 5e an appea is ?A da!s from notice of the Eud#ment or
5na order or resoution appeaed from, or of the denia of the petitioners motion for reconsideration 5ed
in due time, after notice of the Eud#ment on said motion.

4n the case at "ar, the Resoution of the appeate court, dated ?@ Ju! >00D, $hich denied
reconsideration of its 6ecision dated>G 6ecem"er >00A, $as recei'ed "! petitioner on > Au#ust >00A.
IBGJ
+he had unti ?C Au#ust >00A $ithin $hich to perfect her appea. 1o$e'er, none $as made. 4nstead,
she comes to this Court 'ia a petition for certiorari in an e9ort to sa'a#e her ost appea. /'ident!,
appea $as a'aia"e to petitioner. 4t $as aso the speed! and ade3uate remed! under the
circumstances. Petitioner $as, therefore, unsuccessfu in satisf!in# the rudiments for the $rit
of certiorari under Rue DA to issue. Petitioner $as una"e to sho$ that there is no appea, or an! pain,
speed! and ade3uate remed!
IBBJ
in the ordinar! course of a$.

Parenthetica!, it must "e emphasi2ed that under Rue AD, +ec. A;f<
IBAJ
of the Rues of Court, $hich
#o'erns the procedure in the +upreme Court, a $ron# or inappropriate mode of appea, as in this case,
merits an outri#ht dismissa.
IBDJ


%his concusion is made ineucta"! certain for the further reason that e'en as petitioner 5es a
specia ci'i action for certiorariunder Rue DA "efore us, there is no ae#ation $hatsoe'er that the Court of
Appeas acted $ithout or in e(cess of its Eurisdiction, or $ith #ra'e a"use of discretion amountin# to ack or
e(cess of Eurisdiction. 7hat petitioner ascri"es is mere! ack of Eurisdiction on the part of the Court of
Appeas $hich, to the mind of this Court, does not satisf! the e#a fundamentas for a $rit of certiorari to
ie.

%o reiterate, for a petition for certiorari or prohi"ition to "e #ranted, it must set out and
demonstrate, pain! and distinct!, a the facts essentia to esta"ish a ri#ht to a $rit. %he petitioner must
ae#e in his petition and has the "urden of esta"ishin# facts to sho$ that an! other e(istin# remed! is not
speed! or ade3uate and that ;a< the $rit is directed a#ainst a tri"una, "oard or o&cer e(ercisin# Eudicia
or 3uasi=Eudicia functionsF ;"< such tri"una, "oard or o&cer has acted $ithout or in e(cess of Eurisdiction,
or $ith #ra'e a"use of discretion amountin# to e(cess or ack of EurisdictionF and, ;c< there is no appea or
an! pain, speed! and ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of a$. %hese matters must "e threshed out
and sho$n "! petitioner.

4n a petition for certiorari under Rue DA of the Rues of Court, the petitioner is "urdened to esta"ish
that the respondent tri"una acted $ithout Eurisdiction, meanin#, that it does not ha'e the e#a po$er to
determine the caseF or that it acted $ithout or in e(cess of Eurisdiction, meanin#, that ha'in# "een cothed
$ith po$er to determine the case, it o'ersteps its authorit! as determined "! a$, or that it committed
#ra'e a"use of its discretion or acted in a capricious, $himsica, ar"itrar! or despotic manner in the
e(ercise of its Eurisdiction as to "e e3ui'aent to ack of Eurisdiction.

4n an! e'ent, e'en if $e "rush aside technicaities and ao$ the instant petition under Rue DA, the
same must necessari! "e dismissed.
1'. Ne= +&ntie& S5g-& C&6&-tin vs. RTC > I.i., G.R. N. 1*$""1, J-n5-&1 '1, 2""!
+ACTS, 4n the present petition for re'ie$ under Rue BA of the Rues of Court, petitioner assais the
decision of the Court of Appeas ;CA< dismissin# its specia ci'i action for certiorari and a&rmin# the
dismissa orders issued "! the Re#iona %ria Court ;R%C< of 4oio Cit!, actin# as a specia commercia
court.

Petitioner is a domestic corporation en#a#ed in the "usiness of ra$ su#ar miin#. :oreseein# that it
cannot meet its o"i#ations $ith its creditors as the! fe due, petitioner 5ed a Petition for the 6ecaration
of +tate of +uspension of Pa!ments $ith Appro'a of Proposed Reha"iitation Pan under the 4nterim Rues
of Procedure on Corporate Reha"iitation ;>000< some time in Au#ust >00>. :indin# the petition to "e
su&cient in form and su"stance, the R%C issued a +ta! ,rder dated Au#ust >0, >00>, appointin# .anue B.
Cemente as reha"iitation recei'er, orderin# the atter to put up a "ond, and settin# the initia hearin# on
the petition.

,ne of petitioners creditors, the /3uita"e PC4 Bank ;respondent "ank<, 5ed a CommentK,pposition
$ith .otion to /(cude Propert!, ae#in# that petitioner is not 3uai5ed for corporate reha"iitation, as it
can no on#er operate "ecause it has no assets eft. Respondent "ank aso ae#ed that the 5nancia
statements, schedue of de"ts and ia"iities, in'entor! of assets, a&da'it of #enera 5nancia condition,
and reha"iitation pan su"mitted "! petitioner are miseadin# and inaccurate since its properties ha'e
aread! "een forecosed and transferred to respondent "ank "efore the petition for reha"iitation $as 5ed,
and petitioner, in fact, sti o$es respondent "ank de5cienc! ia"iit!.

,n Januar! ?G, >00G, the R%C issued an ,mni"us ,rder terminatin# the proceedin#s and dismissin#
the case. Petitioner 5ed an ,mni"us .otion "ut this $as denied "! the R%C in its ,rder dated Apri ?B,
>00G.
Petitioner then 5ed $ith the CA a specia ci'i action for certiorari, $hich $as denied "! the CA per
assaied.
4n dismissin# the petition, the CA sustained the 5ndin#s of the R%C that since petitioner no on#er
has su&cient assets and properties to continue $ith its operations and ans$er its correspondin# ia"iities,
it is no on#er ei#i"e for reha"iitation. %he CA aso rued that e'en if the R%C erred in dismissin# the
petition, the same coud not "e corrected an!more "ecause $hat petitioner 5ed "efore the CA $as a
specia ci'i action for certiorari under Rue DA of the Rues of Court instead of an ordinar! appea.
ISSUE,7,0 the court of appeas erred in dismissin# the petition for certiorari 5ed "efore it as improper,
appea "ein# an a'aia"e remed!.
HELD, %he CA aso correct! rued that petitioner a'aied of the $ron# remed! $hen it 5ed a specia ci'i
action for certiorari $ith the CA under Rue DA of the Rues of Court.

#ertiorari is a remed! for the correction of errors of Eurisdiction, not errors of Eud#ment. 4t is an
ori#ina and independent action that $as not part of the tria that had resuted in the rendition of the
Eud#ment or order compained of. .ore important!, since the issue is Eurisdiction, an ori#ina action
for certiorari ma! "e directed a#ainst an interlocutory order of the o$er court prior to an appea from
the Eud#mentF or $here there is no appea or an! pain, speed! or ade3uate remed!. A petition
for certiorari shoud "e 5ed not ater than si(t! da!s from the notice of Eud#ment, order, or resoution, and
a motion for reconsideration is #enera! re3uired prior to the 5in# of a petition for certiorari, in order to
a9ord the tri"una an opportunit! to correct the ae#ed errors.
I>@J


%he ,mni"us ,rder dated Januar! ?G, >00G issued "! the R%C is a 5na order since it terminated the
proceedin#s and dismissed the case "efore the tria courtF it ea'es nothin# more to "e done. As such,
petitioners recourse is to 5e an appea from the ,mni"us ,rder.
1o$e'er, it shoud "e noted that the Court issued A... 0o. 0B=@=0C=+C on +eptem"er ?B, >00B,
carif!in# the proper mode of appea in cases in'o'in# corporate reha"iitation and intra=corporate
contro'ersies. 4t is pro'ided therein that a decisions and 5na orders in cases fain# under the 4nterim
Rues of Corporate Reha"iitation and the 4nterim Rues of Procedure Go'ernin# 4ntra=Corporate
Contro'ersies under Repu"ic Act 0o. 8C@@ sha "e appeaed to the CA throu#h a petition for re'ie$ under
Rue BG of the Rues of Court to "e 5ed $ithin 5fteen ;?A< da!s from notice of the decision or 5na order of
the R%C.

4n an! e'ent, as pre'ious! stated, since $hat petitioner 5ed $as a petition for certiorari under Rue
DA of the Rues, the CA ri#ht! dismissed the petition and a&rmed the assaied ,rders.
1#.S-n +e&n-n: R5&-. B-n8 vs. P-m6-ng- Omni%5s Deve.6ment C&6&-tin, $2" SCRA $*#
<2""!7
+ACTS, Respondent P,6C $as the re#istered o$ner of a parce of and in +an :ernando. Respondent P,6C
secured t$o oans from petitioner and .asanto Rura Bank, 4nc. ;.RB4< . %he oans $ere e'idenced "!
separate promissor! notes e(ecuted "! :ederico R. .endo2a and Anastacio /. de Oera. %o secure pa!ment
of the oans, respondent P,6C e(ecuted a rea estate mort#a#e o'er the su"Eect ot in fa'or of the creditor
"anks. %he contract pro'ided that in case of faiure or refusa of the mort#a#or to pa! the o"i#ation
secured there"!, the rea estate mort#a#e ma! "e e(traEudicia! forecosed in accordance $ith Act 0o.
G?GA, as amended.

/i2a .. Gar"es ;P,6C President and dau#hter of :ederico .endo2a<, to#ether $ith her hus"and
Aristedes Gar"es, secured a oan from petitioner. %he oan $as to mature after ?80 da!s or on +eptem"er
>G, ?@@>. .endo2a si#ned as co="orro$er in the promissor! note e(ecuted "! the spouses. %he spouses
aso e(ecuted a chatte mort#a#e o'er their persona propert! as securit! for the pa!ment of their oan
account.

Upon respondent P,6Cs faiure to pa! its oan to petitioner, the atter 5ed a petition for
e(traEudicia forecosure of rea estate mort#a#e and at the auction petitioner emer#ed as the $innin#
"idder. %he /x)01cio +heri9 e(ecuted a Certi5cate of +ae $hich stated that the period of redemption of
the propert! sha e(pire one ;?< !ear after re#istration in the Re#ister of 6eeds. Petitioner did not 5e a
petition for a $rit of possession durin# the redemption period.

,n .a! ??, >00>, petitioner, throu#h /i2a Gar"es ;$ith the authorit! of petitioners "oard of
directors<, e(ecuted a notari2ed deed of assi#nment in fa'or of respondent 6ominic G. A3uino o'er its ri#ht
to redeem the propert!. ,n .a! >@, >00>, respondent A3uino o9ered to redeem the propert!
for P?,A88,0@B.>8, "ut petitioner reEected the o9er and demanded the pa!ment of P?D,80A,B?B.C?
;incudin# the oan of the spouses Gar"es< as redemption mone!. Respondent A3uino reEected the
demand of petitioner.


,n the same da!, petitioners representati'e /'in Re!es $ent to the o&ce of the /x)01cio +heri9
and in3uired ho$ the amount of PA,?@B,CB>.A0 $as arri'ed at. %he /x)01cio +heri9 e(pained to him that
she had accepted the redemption price in accordance $ith the pro'isions of

6urin# the hearin#, respondent P,6C opposed the petition on the foo$in# #rounds: petitioner
dei"erate! conceaed the fact that the propert! had "een redeemed on June C, >00>F respondent A3uino
had paid PA,?@B,CB>.00 as redemption mone! "ased on the computation of petitionerF the /x)
01cio +heri9 had e(ecuted a Certi5cate of Redemption in fa'or of respondent A3uino on June C, >00>, a
cop! of $hich petitioner refused to recei'eF respondent A3uino, as assi#nee, had o9ered to redeem the
propert! on .a! >@, >00> and tendered the amount of P?,A88,0@B.>8, "ut petitioner insisted that the
redemption price $as P?D,80A,B?B.C?, incudin# the oan account of the spouses Gar"esF that since
respondent A3uino had redeemed the propert! from the /x)01cio +heri9 on June C, >00> $ithin the one=
!ear period after pa!in# the tota amount of PA,?@B,CB>.A0, it $as respondent A3uino, and not petitioner,
$ho is entited to a $rit of possessionF and that "esides, he $as aread! in possession of the propert!. 4t
insisted that petitioner 5ed its petition to preempt the resoution of the )RA on the consulta of the Re#ister
of 6eeds. %he oppositor pra!ed that the petition "e denied and that it "e #ranted such other reief and
remedies Eust and e3uita"e under the premises.

4n its Rep!, petitioner a'erred that since respondent A3uino had o9ered an amount short of the
redemption price ofP?D,80A,B?B.C?, under +ection BC of R.A. 0o. 8C@? there $as no 'aid redemption of
the propert!.
:urthermore, the court hed that petitioners ri#ht to the possession of the forecosed propert! is
"ostered "! the fact that no third part! $as actua! hodin# the propert! ad'erse to respondent
P,6C. Respondent A3uino, as assi#nee of respondent P,6Cs ri#ht to redeem coud not "e considered a
part! hodin# the propert! ad'erse! to respondent P,6C. 0either $as there an! pendin# ci'i case
in'o'in# the ri#hts of third parties. Conse3uent!, it $as the ministeria dut! of the R%C to issue a $rit of
possession in fa'or of petitioner, as the $innin# "idder in the pu"ic auction.


:or its part, petitioner stated in its ,pposition to respondents motion for reconsideration, that it
$as not necessar! that a "u!er in a pu"ic auction "e issued a tite in its name "efore it coud "e entited
to a $rit of possession upon the e(piration of the redemption period. %he tite is mere! an e'idence of
o$nershipF it is the Certi5cate of +ae that 'ests o$nership in the "u!er o'er the propert! sod. 4t insisted
that the purchaser $as entited to the possession of the propert! e'en after the apse of the redemption
period.

,n :e"ruar! ?8, >00G, the court issued an ,rder den!in# the motion for reconsideration of
respondents. %he court rued that petitioner, as purchaser at pu"ic auction, ac3uired the ri#ht to possess
the propert!, and the ri#ht of the mort#a#or from the time it purchased the propert! and not from the
issuance of the tite o'er the propert! in its name.

,n .arch D, >00G, respondents 5ed a Petition for #ertiorari $ith the CA, assaiin# the orders of the
R%C.
%he! a'erred that the R%C shoud ha'e denied the petition for a $rit of possession pendin# the
resoution of the consulta "! the )RA.
ISSUE,7,0 Court of Appeas serious! erred $hen it sanctioned the Respondents resort
to #ertiorari under Rue DA of the Re'ised Rues of Court, 3uestionin# a 5na order and not an
interocutor! order of the R%C.
HELD, %he CA erred in hodin# that the ,rder of the R%C #rantin# the petition for a $rit of possession $as
mere! interocutor!. 4nterocutor! orders are those that determine incidenta matters and $hich do not
touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedin#s. A petition for certiorari under Rue DA of
the Rues of Court is the proper remed! to 3uestion an impro'ident interocutor! order. ,n the other hand,
a 5na order is one that disposes of the $hoe matter or terminates the particuar proceedin#s or action
ea'in# nothin# to "e done "ut to enforce "! e(ecution $hat has "een determined. 4t is one that 5na!
disposes of the pendin# action so that nothin# more can "e done $ith it in the o$er court.
ID?J
%he remed!
to 3uestion a 5na order is appea under Rue B? of the Rues of Court.

7e a#ree $ith petitioners contention that the 6ecem"er >0, >00> ,rder of the R%C #rantin# the
petition for a $rit of possession is 5na. %he remed! of respondents $as to appea to the CA "! 5in# their
notice of appea $ithin the period therefor.
%he reiance of the CA in #ity o 2anila v. *errano
I
is mispaced. 4n that case, the tria court issued
the $rit of possession in connection $ith a compaint for e(propriation under Rue DC of the Rues of
Court. +uch a $rit is interocutor! in nature. ,n the other hand, an order #rantin# a $rit of possession
under Act 0o. G?GA, as amended, is of a di9erent species. %he atter order is 5na, hence, appeaa"e.
Even if the trial court erred in granting a petition for a writ of possession, such an error is
merely an error of judgment correctible by ordinary appeal and not by a petition for a writ
of certiorari. Such $rit cannot "e e#a! used for an! other purpose.

#ertiorari is a remed! narro$ in its scope and inRe(i"e in character. 4t is not a #enera utiit! too in
the e#a $orkshop. #ertiorari $i issue on! to correct errors of Eurisdiction and not to correct errors of
Eud#ment. An error of Eud#ment is one $hich the court ma! commit in the e(ercise of its Eurisdiction, and
$hich error is re'ie$a"e on! "! an appea. /rror of Eurisdiction is one $here the act compained of $as
issued "! the court $ithout or in e(cess of Eurisdiction and $hich error is correcti"e on! "! the
e(traordinar! $rit of certiorari. As on# as the court acts $ithin its Eurisdiction, an! ae#ed errors
committed in the e(ercise of its discretion $i amount to nothin# more than mere errors of Eud#ment,
correcti"e "! an appea if the a##rie'ed part! raised factua and e#a issuesF or a petition for re'ie$
under Rue BA of the Rues of Court if on! 3uestions of a$ are in'o'ed.

A cert $rit ma! "e issued if the court or 3uasi=Eudicia "od! issues an order $ith #ra'e a"use of
discretion amountin# to e(cess or ack of Eurisdiction. Gra'e a"use of discretion impies such capricious
and $himsica e(ercise of Eud#ment as is e3ui'aent to ack of Eurisdiction or, in other $ords, $here the
po$er is e(ercised in an ar"itrar! manner "! reason of passion, preEudice, or persona hostiit!, and it must
"e so patent or #ross as to amount to an e'asion of a positi'e dut! or to a 'irtua refusa to perform the
dut! enEoined or to act at a in contempation of a$. .ere a"use of discretion is not enou#h. .oreo'er, a
part! is entited to a $rit of certiorari on! if there is no appea nor an! pain, speed! or ade3uate reief in
the ordinar! course of a$.

%he raison detre for the rue is that $hen a court e(ercises its Eurisdiction, an error committed $hie
so en#a#ed does not depri'e it of the Eurisdiction "ein# e(ercised $hen the error $as committed. 4f it did,
e'er! error committed "! a court $oud depri'e it of its Eurisdiction and e'er! erroneous Eud#ment $oud
"e a 'oid Eud#ment. 4n such a situation, the administration of Eustice $oud not sur'i'e. 1ence, $here the
issue or 3uestion in'o'ed a9ects the $isdom or e#a soundness of the decision not the Eurisdiction of
the court to render said decision the same is "e!ond the pro'ince of a specia ci'i action for certiorari.

1$. Ong vs. Bgn-.%-., G.R. N. 1#(1#", Se6tem%e& 12, 2""*
+ACTS, Respondent Bo#Sa"a, an architect=contractor doin# "usiness under the name and st!e of
/.B. Bo#Sa"a Construction, entered into an ,$ner=Contractor A#reement $ith petitioner ,n#,
a "usiness$oman, for the construction of a proposed "outi3ue o$ned "! the atter. %he a#reement
pro'ides that in consideration of the sum P>00,000.00, the contractor a#rees to furnish a"or, toos
and e3uipment to compete the $ork on the "outi3ue as per speci5cation $ithin BA da!s e(cudin#
+unda!s from the date of dei'er! of the construction materias. Pa!ment "! the o$ner sha "e
made "! pro#ress "iin# to "e coected e'er! > $eeks "ased on the accompishment of $ork 'aue
su"mitted "! the contractor to the o$ner as certi5ed for pa!ment "! the architect assi#ned on
site. %he a#reement ike$ise pro'ides for a chan#e order as a resut of Ructuation in the cost of
a"or. .oreo'er, shoud the o$ner re3uire the contractor to perform $ork o'er and a"o'e that
re3uired, the additiona cost sha "e added to the contract amount and if ordered to omit $ork as
re3uired "! their a#reement, the cost of $ork omitted sha "e deducted from the contract amount.
4t is $ith respect to pro#ress "iin# no. B that the present contro'ers! arose. 7hen
respondent su"mitted the fourth pro#ress "iin# on for the period co'erin# .arch B to ?8,
?@@A, in the sum of PG0,@A0.00 e3ui'aent to ?A.BCQ of the tota Eo" petitioner refused to
pa! the same. As in the pre'ious three "iin#s, the fourth "iin# $as 5rst e'auated and
recommended for pa!ment "! +uper'isin# Architect John 0oe R. Cano.

%he reason for ,n#s refusa to pa! the B
th
pro#ress "iin# is not cear on the
record. 4t is Irespondent Bo#Sa"asJ contention that ,n# refused to pa! since she $as
insistin# that the Roorin#, $hich she asked to "e chan#ed from 'in! ties to ken2o Roorin#
$here po!urethane is to "e used as coatin#, "e 5rst competed $ithin three ;G<
da!s. Respondent ho$e'er, insisted that the same is not possi"e "ecause the Roor needed
to "e cured 5rst to a'oid ad'erse chemica reaction of the po!urethane on the coor of the
Roorin#. 6ue to the insistence of ,n# that the Roorin# "e 5nished in time for the arri'a of
the furniture from a"road, respondent proceeded $ith the $ork "ut the rushed $ork resuted
in the reddish reaction of the po!urethane on the Roor, $hich $as not accepta"e to
respondent.
6ue to petitioners continued refusa to pa! respondent fourth B
th
pro#ress "iin#
despite $ritten demands from his counse, the atter $as constrained to 5e an action for
sum of mone! $ith dama#es $ith the .etropoitan %ria Court ;.e%C< of Caoocan Cit!.
4n her ans$er $ith countercaim, petitioner refused pa!ment of the B
th
pro#ress
"iin# since respondent faied to perform $hat $as incum"ent upon him under their
a#reement, "ut instead a"andoned the Eo" to her #reat dama#e and preEudice.
After tria on the merits, the I.e%CJ, in a 6ecision dated June ?8, ?@@8, rued in fa'or of
respondent a$ardin# to him the sum of PG0,@A0.00 representin# the fourth pro#ress "iin#,
P?G,000.00 representin# the 'aue of the accompished $ork on the ken2o Roorin#,
P?A,000.00 as attorne!s fees, P>0,000.00 and P>A,000.00 as mora and e(empar!
dama#es, respecti'e!.
A##rie'ed "! the decision of the court, Ipetitioner ,n#J ee'ated the case on appea
to the Re#iona %ria Court ;R%C< of Caoocan Cit!.
%he court a 3uo, after re3uirin# the parties to su"mit their respecti'e memoranda,
re'ersed and set aside the ruin# of the .%C and rendered Eud#ment in fa'or of petitioner
,n#.
Respondent Bo#Sa"a then 5ed a Petition for Re'ie$ $ith the Court of Appeas. %he CA
issued an order re'ersin# the decision of R%C.
%he Court of Appeas denied petitioner ,n#s .otion for Reconsideration. ,n# then 5ed a petition
for certiorari.
ISSUE,3ON Petition for certiorari is the correct remed!8
HELD: Petitioner caims that a specia ci'i action for certiorari is proper since appea "! certiorari under
Rue BA is imited on! to 3uestions of a$. %his is $ron#. %he $rit of certiorari is proper to correct errors of
Eurisdiction committed "! the o$er court, or #ra'e a"use of discretion $hich is tantamount to ack of
Eurisdiction. 7here the error is not one of Eurisdiction "ut an error of a$ or fact $hich is a mistake of
Eud#ment, appea is the remed!.
ICJ
4t is true that, as a #enera rue, in the e(ercise of the +upreme Court's po$er of re'ie$, the Court is
not a trier of facts and does not norma! undertake the re=e(amination of the e'idence presented "! the
contendin# parties durin# the tria of the case considerin# that the 5ndin#s of facts of the Court of Appeas
are concusi'e and "indin# on the Court. 1o$e'er, the Court had reco#ni2ed se'era e(ceptions to this
rue, to $it: ;?< $hen the 5ndin#s are #rounded entire! on specuation, surmises or conEecturesF ;>< $hen
the inference made is manifest! mistaken, a"surd or impossi"eF ;G< $hen there is #ra'e a"use of
discretionF ;B< $hen the Eud#ment is "ased on a misapprehension of factsF ;A< $hen the 5ndin#s of facts
are conRictin#F ;D< $hen in makin# its 5ndin#s the Court of Appeas $ent "e!ond the issues of the case, or
its 5ndin#s are contrar! to the admissions of "oth the appeant and the appeeeF ;C< $hen the 5ndin#s are
contrar! to the tria courtF ;8< $hen the 5ndin#s are concusions $ithout citation of speci5c e'idence on
$hich the! are "asedF ;@< $hen the facts set forth in the petition as $e as in the petitioner's main and
rep! "riefs are not disputed "! the respondentF ;?0< $hen the 5ndin#s of fact are premised on the
supposed a"sence of e'idence and contradicted "! the e'idence on recordF and ;??< $hen the Court of
Appeas manifest! o'erooked certain ree'ant facts not disputed "! the parties, $hich, if proper!
considered, $oud Eustif! a di9erent concusion.
4f the ae#ed! erroneous 5ndin#s of fact "! the Court of Appeas amounts to #ra'e a"use of discretion
amountin# to ack of or e(cess of Eurisdiction, the proper remed! $oud indeed "e a petition
for certiorari under Rue DA. 1o$e'er, if the ae#ed! erroneous 5ndin#s of fact constitute on! a mistake
of Eud#ment, the proper remed! is a petition for re'ie$ on certiorari under Rue BA. +ince the petition 5ed
in the case at "ar is one under Rue DA, $e $oud "e constrained to dismiss the same if $e 5nd a mere
error of Eud#ment
%his Court notices that the pra!er in the instant Petition for #ertiorari on! seeks to nuif! the Resoution of
the Court of Appeas on petitioner ,n#s .otion for Reconsideration, $ithout pra!in# for the nui5cation
of the 6ecision itsef sou#ht to "e reconsidered. %he reason seems to "e the fact that petitioner ,n#,
throu#h counse, recei'ed the 6ecision more than si(t! da!s prior to the 5in# of the Petition. A Petition
seekin# to nuif! such 6ecision $as, thus, percei'ed to "e 'ioati'e of +ection B, Rue DA of the ?@@C Rues
of Ci'i Procedure, $hich originally pro'ides:
+/C. B. +here petition ,led. %he petition ma! "e 5ed not ater than si(t! ;D0< da!s
from notice of the Eud#ment, order or resoution sou#ht to "e assaied in the +upreme Court
or, if it reates to the acts or omissions of a o$er court or of a corporation, "oard, o&cer or
person, in the Re#iona %ria Court e(ercisin# Eurisdiction o'er the territoria area as de5ned
"! the +upreme Court. 4t ma! aso "e 5ed in the Court of Appeas $hether or not the same
is in aid of its appeate Eurisdiction, ( ( (.
+ection B, Rue DA $as, ho$e'er, amended on ? +eptem"er >000, se'era months "efore the 5in#
of this Petition, to insert the foo$in# pro'ision:

4n case a motion for reconsideration or ne$ tria is time! 5ed, $hether such motion is
re3uired or not, the si(t! ;D0< da! period sha "e counted from notice of the denia of said
motion.
%his insertion #i'es petitioner ,n# a fresh D0=da! period to assai the 6ecision via a Petition
for #ertiorari, $hich is $hat this Petition rea! seeks and $hich is ho$ this Court has treated the same.
%he instant Petition for #ertiorari is here"! DISMISSED for ack of merit. Costs a#ainst petitioner.
1*. Pe6.e vs. A.men:&-s, #"1 SCRA $$$
+ACTS: Respondents $ere arrested "! operati'es of the Phiippine 0ationa Poice 0arcotics Commandin
Caam"a, )a#una as a resut of a T"u!="ustU operation on June ?@, ?@@8.
Assisted "! their defense counse, Att!. Rodofo Jimene2, appeants peaded not #uit! to the char#e.
,n .a! D, ?@@@, the prosecution rested its case.
6efense counse mo'ed for ea'e to 5e a .otion for 6emurrer to /'idence and the admission of said
6emurrer $ith Aternati'e Pra!er for Bai.%he defense su"mitted that the prosecution faied to esta"ish the
eement of ack of authorit! to se and dei'er the ae#ed sha"u. %he tria court denied the 6emurrer to
/'idence.
%he defense then 5ed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohi"ition, and .andamus $ith Preiminar! 4nEunction
"efore the Court of Appeas. Appeants ae#ed that the tria court #ra'e! a"used its Eudicia discretion in
den!in# their 6emurrer to /'idence and in den!in# their pra!er for "ai.
,n .arch >0, >000, defense counse mo'ed to suspend proceedin#s in Crimina Casependin# the 5na
disposition "! the Court of Appeas of their petition. %he tria dates $ere mo'ed to Apri D and ?0, >000
and .a! ?0, >000. %he tria dates $ere mo'ed to +eptem"er >? and >8, and ,cto"er A, >000 "ecause the
defense counse $ere a$a!s a"sent ;the! $anted the case postponed unti the Certiorari case $ith the CA
$as 5nished<.
,n ,cto"er A, >000 tria AppeantVs counse de o5cio ;"ecause of the a"sence of the counse de parte !et
a#ain< manifested that the Amendras spouses refused to testif! in court. %he tria court then reset the
hearin# for ,cto"er >D, >000 and rued that in the e'ent the defense faied to adduce its e'idence on said
date, the defense $oud "e considered as ha'in# $ai'ed its ri#ht to present e'idence.
ISSUE, 7,0 the tria court erred and #ra'e! a"used its Eudicia discretion in $ai'in# appeantVs ri#ht to
present their defense and proceedin# to con'ict them pendin# their certiorari in the court of appeas. ;0,<
HELD, Uner+ection >G of Rue ??@, >000 Rues of Crimina Procedurepro'ides that Tthe order den!in# the
motion for ea'e of court to 5e demurrer to e'idence or the demurrer itsef sha not "e re'ie$a"e "!
appea or "! certiorari "efore Eud#ment.U
Appeants ost their chance to present e'idence due to the dea!in# strate#em of their ori#ina counse of
record.Athou#h there $as no order from the Court of Appeas enEoinin# the court a 3uo from resumin# its
proceedin#s, the tria court postponed the resumption of hearin# for si( months, or on .arch >000, so as
not to pre=empt the action of the Court of Appeas on appeantVs pra!er for %emporar! Restrainin# ,rder.
1o$e'er, in 'ie$ of the death penat! imposed on appeants, the +Care constrained to rue that accused=
appeants "e ao$ed to present e'idence for their defense no$.
1!. B5g-&in vs. P-.is9, G.R. N. 1$!()$, De9em%e& 2, 2""$
+ACTS, %he present contro'ers! arose from a compaint for eEectment5ed"! pri'ate respondents Ceciia
B. Paisoc and .arina B. .ata. %he metc decared respondents as the ri#htfu possessors of the properties
in dispute. 4t aso ordered the petitioners to 'acate the premises and pa! to pri'ate respondents the
rentas.
Petitioners appeaed to the Re#iona %ria Court ;R%C< of ParaSa3ue Cit!$hie pri'ate respondents mo'ed
for e(ecution pendin# appea. %he R%C a&rmed the .e%C decision $ith the modi5cation that petitioners
must start pa!in# rentas from the date of the appeaed decision.
,n .arch G, >00G, the R%C denied the .R of petitioners and #ranted pri'ate respondentsV motion for
e(ecution for faiure of petitioners to post a supersedeas "ond or to pa! the "ack rentas. A $rit of
e(ecution pendin# appea $as issued. ,n .arch C, >00G, petitioners $ere ser'ed $ith the $rit and notice
to 'acate.
,n .arch ?B, >00G, pri'ate respondents 5ed a .otion to 4ssue a +pecia ,rder of 6emoition since
petitioners refused to 'acate the premises.
Petitioners contend that the ,rders of the .e%C 'ioated the mandator! re3uirements of +ection >8of Rep.
Act 0o. C>C@ since there $as no G0=da! notice prior to the date of e'iction or demoition and there had
"een no consutation on the matter of resettement
4n an order dated Apri ??, >00G, the R%C decared the decision den!in# petitionersV appea 5na and
e(ecutor!
,n Apri ?0, >00G, petitioners 5ed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohi"ition $ith Pra!er for Preiminar!
Prohi"itor! 4nEunction "efore the Court of Appeas. ;this is a#ainst R%C decision<
,n .a! D, >00G, .e%C Branch +heri9 Re!nado %. 0epomuceno reported that petitioners refused to 'acate
the premises. Petitioners instead 5ed a .otion to Luash and Reca the ,rder dated Apri G0, >00G andKor
+pecia ,rder of 6emoition. %he .e%C denied the motion and issued the +pecia ,rder of 6emoition on
.a! @, >00G. 1ence certiorari $ith +C ;this is a#ainst the .etc decision<
ISSUE: 7,0 .etc Correct.
HELD, A Eud#ment on a forci"e entr! and detainer action is immediate! e(ecutor!. %he defendant ma!
sta! it on! "! ;a< perfectin# an appeaF ;"< 5in# a supersedeas "ondF and ;c< makin# a periodic deposit of
the renta or reasona"e compensation for the use and occupanc! of the propert! durin# the pendenc! of
the appea.,nce the Re#iona %ria Court decides on the appea, such decision is immediate!
e(ecutor!$ithout preEudice to an appea, 'ia a petition for re'ie$, "efore the Court of Appeas or +upreme
Court.
%he petitioners faied to 5e a petition for re'ie$ $hen recei'ed the order from R%C den!in# their .R.
4nstead, the! 5ed a petition for certiorari and prohi"ition on Apri ?0, >00G.
PetitionersV petition for certiorari "efore the Court of Appeas $as 5ed as a su"stitute for the ost remed!
of appea. Certiorari is not and cannot "e made a su"stitute for an appea $here the atter remed! is
a'aia"e "ut $as ost throu#h faut or ne#i#ence.%hus, the 5in# of the petition for certiorari did not
pre'ent the R%C decision from "ecomin# 5na and e(ecutor!.
+u"stanti'e issue: Under the pro'ision RA C>C@, e'iction or demoition ma! "e ao$ed $hen there is a
court order for e'iction and demoition, as in the case at "ar.
1). B-n9 +i.i6in S-vings -n: M&tg-ge B-n8 vs. C5&t > A66e-.s, ''# SCRA '"$
+ACTS, %he instant case ori#inated from the sae "! Banco :iipino to %aa Reat! of four ;B< ots in 4oio
Cit!for t$o miion one hundred ten thousand pesos ;P>,??0,000.00<%aa Reat! then eased them "ack to
Banco :iipino for a month! renta of t$ent! one thousand pesos ;P>?,000.00< Kfor a period of t$ent! ;>0<
!ears and rene$a"e for another t$ent! ;>0< !ears.
Banco :iipino ae#es that a trust $as created "! 'irtue of the a"o'e transactions. %aa Reat! $as
ae#ed! esta"ished to ser'e as a corporate medium to $arehouse the e#a tite of the said properties for
the "ene5cia interest of Banco :iipino and to purchase properties to "e hed in trust for the atter.
;%he Genera Bankin# Actre#uates the num"er of "ranches that a "ank ma! operate. Under the said a$, a
"ank is ao$ed to o$n the and and the impro'ements thereon used as "ranch sites "ut on! up to a
ma(imum of 5ft! percent ;A0Q< of the "ankVs net $orth.%aaReat!$as concei'ed and or#ani2ed precise!
as a transferee corporation "! the maEor stockhodersofBanco :iipino<
Au#ust ?@@>, %aa Reat! demanded pa!ment of increased rentas, deposits and #ood$i from Banco
:iipino, $ith a threat of eEectment in case of faiure to comp! thereto. ,n Apri >0, ?@@B, some
stockhoders of Banco :iipino 5ed a deri'ati'e suit a#ainst %aa Reat! "efore the +/C for the
recon'e!ance of the properties sod "! the former to the atter. 1o$e'er, on .arch D, ?@@A, the +/C
dismissed the case on the #round of ack of Eurisdiction.
6ue to Banco :iipinoVs faiure to comp! $ith %aa Reat!Vs terms, %A)A 5ed numerous eEectment suits
a#ainst Banco :iipino. Banco :iipino 5ed action for reco'er! of rea properties"efore the Re#iona %ria
Court of 4oioon the #round of "reach of trust. R%C dismissed BancoVs compaint upon motion of %A)A.
,n June >C, ?@@D, the tria court denied Banco :iipinoVs motion for reconsideration. 4nstead of 5in# an
appea, it 5ed, on Ju! >B, ?@@D, a petition for certiorari under Rue DA "efore the Court of Appeas. CA
dismissed the petition. %he Court of Appeas then denied motion for reconsideration "! Banco. Banco then
5ed $ith this Court its su"Eect petition for certiorari under Rue DA.
ISSUE: 7,0 petitioners correct $hen the! instituted rue DA $ith +C instead of rue BA $ith +C after the
denia of .R "! CA
HELD: 0,.Certiorari cannot "e used as a su"stitute for the apsed or ost remed! of appea. Banco
:iipinoVs recourse to a specia ci'i action for certiorari $as "orne not out of the con'iction that #ra'e
a"use of discretion attended the resoution of its petition "efore the Court of Appeas "ut simp! "ecause
of its faiure to 5e a time! appea to the +C.
%he a'aia"iit! to Banco :iipino of the remed! of a petition for re'ie$ from the decision of the Court of
Appeas e9ecti'e! forecosed its ri#ht to resort to a petition for certiorari. Rue DA ies on! $hen there is
no appea nor pain, speed! and ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of a$. Certiorari is not ao$ed
$hen a part! to a case fais to appea a Eud#ment despite the a'aia"iit! of that remed!. %he remedies of
appea and certiorari are mutua! e(cusi'e and not aternati'e or successi'e.
1(. C?5- vs. C5&t > A66e-.s, '## SCRA 1'*
+ACTS: :ernando B. .orada o$ned a )ot ocated in Ce"u Cit!. 1is on! heirs $ere his $ife, Aida 0. .orada,
and t$o minor chidren. After his death, the pro"ate court appointed Aida as administratri(.,n Ju! >0,
?@8B, the pro"ate court ao$ed the sae of the ot for P>00,000.00 to the spouses Precioso and
Consoacion /nri3ue2. )ater, the spouses and Aida a#reed to rescind the said sae.,n Januar! >0, ?@88, the
pro"ate court a#ain issued an order ao$in# the re=sae of said ot, the proceeds of $hich sha "e used to
pa! the P>00,000.00 aread! paid "! the /nri3ue2 spouses.,n Apri ?A, ?@@?, a 6eed of A"soute +ae
thereof $as e(ecuted in fa'or of +o5a +anche2,for one miion pesos pa!a"e $ith a do$n pa!ment of
PA00,000.00 and the "aance to "e paid after the ot $as ceared of s3uatters.
,n Ju! ?D, ?@@?,4nter'enor+a#rario .oreos, 5ed a motion for reconsideration opposin# the sae ae#in#
that the sae $as preEudicia to the minor heirs of :ernando. 1e caimed that the ot coud "e sod for P?.A
miion pesos.6urin# the conference, Att!. Ca"iao re'eaed that he o9ered P> miion pesos for the ot $ith
the seer undertakin# the e'iction of the present occupants, or P?.A miion $ith the "u!er shouderin# the
e(penses to cear the ot of its present occupants. Aida o"Eected sa!in# theo9er $as made on! after the
sae to +anche2 $as aread! appro'ed "! the court.
,n 0o'em"er ?A, ?@@?, Jud#e A"ar3ue2 issued an order re'okin# his appro'a of the sae and decared
'oid and $ithout e9ect the deed of a"soute sae he had earier appro'ed. Before the case $as re=raNed to
"ranch ?> and "efore the Eud#e inhi"ited himsef the sae to sanche2 "ecame 'oid and the sae to att!.
Ca"iao "ecame 5na and e(ecutor!. Att!. Ca"iao then 5ed a motion for e(ecution.Jud#e Portia AiSo=
1ormachueos, presidin# o'er Branch ?> $here the case $as re=raNed, issued an ,mni"us ,rder #rantin#
the motion for e(ecution and dismissin# the ur#ent motion of +anche2.
,n Januar! >@, ?@@>, +anche2 5ed a motion for reconsideration and made a counter=o9er of P?.D
miion%he motion $as denied. %he court said that the ,rder appro'in# the sae to Att!. Ca"iao had
"ecome 5na and e(ecutor! and that the counter o9er $as not a compein# reason for the court to 'acate
its order. As it turned out, the propert! $as "ou#ht "! :ei( U! Chua, Ro"erto 4pin# Chua and Richard U!
Chua, the cients of Att!. Ca"iao.
+anche2 5ed a petition for certiorari "efore the Court of Appeasthe appeate court #ranted the petition in
fa'or of pri'ate respondent +anche2 and the 6eed of A"soute +ae in her fa'or $as a&rmed and
reinstated.
ISSUES, ?. 7,0 CA erred in reinstatin# sanche2V deed of a"soute sae
>. 7,0 certiorari $as the proper remed! not rue BA ;certiorari<
HELD, ?. -/+,%he pro"ate court appro'ed the 6eed of +ae in fa'or of +anche2 on .a! G, ?@@?. 4n specia
proceedin#s under Rue ?0@ of the Rues of Court and in other cases $here mutipe appeas are ao$ed,
the period of appea is thirt! da!s. A record on appea is re3uired.Att!. Rodofo .. .oreos did not appea
"ut 5ed a motion for reconsideration on! on Ju! ?D, ?@@?, $hie Att!. Ca"iao inter'ened and o9ered to
"u! the propert! on Au#ust D, ?@@?. B! then, the sae of the propert! to +anche2 $as aread!
consummated and 5na. 7hen the pro"ate court ao$ed Att!. Ca"iao to propose to "u! the and and
ao$ed the sae to the atter, the pro"ate court, at this Euncture, had cear! #ra'e! a"used its discretion.
A other proceedin#s thereafter $ere conducted "! the pro"ate court $ithout Eurisdiction incudin# the
erroneous nui5cation of the sae to +anche2 and the su"se3uent sae to petitioners. %he Court of Appeas,
therefore did not err in its order nuif!in# and 'oidin# the orders dated 0o'em"er ?A, ?@@?, Januar! ?G,
?@@> and :e"ruar! >A, ?@@>.
>. A specia ci'i action for certiorari chaen#in# the R%C $ith #ra'e a"use of discretion ma! "e instituted
either in the Court of Appeas or the +upreme Court. Both ha'e ori#ina concurrent Eurisdiction. Certiorari
ma! "e successfu! in'oked "oth in cases $herein an appea does not ie and in those $herein the ri#ht to
appea ha'in# "een ost $ith or $ithout the appeantVs ne#i#ence, the court has no Eurisdiction to issue
the order or decision $hich is the su"Eect matter of the remed!.
4ssue on fraud a'erred "! the petitioners: :raud must "e "oth ae#ed and pro'en, it is ne'er presumed
A&da'its must sho$ the fraud, accident, mistake or e(cusa"e ne#i#ence reied upon. %he Court of
Appeas noted that fraud $as not stated speci5ca! in the peadin#s, either in the motion for
reconsideration "! .oreos or in the proposa to "u! the propert! "! Att!. Ca"iao.
2". A95@- vs. De65t1 Om%5:sm-n, #$" SCRA 2'2, J-n5-&1 '1, 2""$
+ACTS, Petitioner is a former teacher of the +choo. Respondent Pedro Pascua$as +chooVs ,&cer=4n=
Char#e $hie respondent Ronnie %ura $as a mem"er of its facut!.
,n ?G Ju! ?@@8,/rinda-a"utanotherteacher, to#ether $ith other schoo personne, re3uested a diao#ue
$ith respondent Pascua on some unspeci5ed matter. Respondent Pascua a#reed to the re3uest and the
meetin# took pace on ?D Ju! ?@@8. Respondent %ura attended the meetin# upon respondent PascuaVs
directi'e. Petitioner, $hom -a"ut apparent! in'ited, aso attended the meetin#.
As an o9shoot to an incident durin# the ?D Ju! ?@@8 meetin#, petitioner char#ed respondent Pascua $ith
misconductand $ith 'ioation of Artice ?G?of the RPC ;Prohi"ition, interruption, and dissoution of peacefu
meetin#s< and a perEur! compaint"efore the ,&ce of the ,m"udsman.Pri'ate respondents denied the
char#e a#ainst them and sou#ht the dismissa of the compaint.
6eput! ,m"udsman for )u2on dismissed petitionerVs compaint in his B Apri >000 Resoution. Petitioner
sou#ht reconsideration "ut pu"ic respondent denied her motion in the ?@ June >000 ,rder.
1ence Certiorari.Petitioner contends that pu"ic respondent committed #ra'e a"use of discretion in
dismissin# her compaint for ack of pro"a"e cause.Pri'ate respondents contend that petitioner 5ed this
petition "e!ond the ten=da! period pro'ided in +ection >C of Repu"ic Act 0o. DCC0.
ISSUES, ?. 7,0 certiorari 5ed out of time
>. 7,0 %here $as #ra'e a"use "! Pu"ic respondent deput! om"udsman of )u2on
HELD: ?. 0,, +ec >C $as decared unconstitutiona for e(pandin# the CourtVs Eurisdiction $ithout its
consent in 'ioation of Artice O4, +ection G0 of the Constitution. 7here the 5ndin# of the ,m"udsman is
tainted $ith #ra'e a"use of discretion, amountin# to ack or e(cess of Eurisdiction, an a##rie'ed part! ma!
5e a petition for certiorari under Rue DA.Petitioner precise! a'aied of such remed! $hen she 5ed this
petition for certiorari under Rue DA ae#in# that pu"ic respondent #ra'e! a"used his discretion in
dismissin# her compaint a#ainst pri'ate respondents.
Under +ection B of Rue DA, as amended, petitioner had D0 da!s from her receipt of the ?@ June >000
,rder $ithin $hich to 5e this petition. Petitioner recei'ed a cop! of the ?@ June >000 ,rder on ?G Ju!
>000. %hus, petitioner had unti ?? +eptem"er >000 $ithin $hich to 5e this petition. Petitioner did so on
?? Au#ust >000. 1ence, petitioner 5ed this petition on time.
>. 0,.%here $as no pro"a"e cause for perEur!.
21. ANGEL JARDIN vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION <NLRC7 -n: GOODMAN TAAI
<PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.7,G.R. N. 11(2*) +e%&5-&1 2', 2""", '2* SCRA 2((
+ACTS,Petitioners $ere dri'ers of pri'ate respondent, PhiEama 4nternationa 4nc., a domestic corporation
en#a#ed in the operation of *Goodman %a(i.* Petitioners dri'e pri'ate respondent's ta(ica"s on a >B=hour
$ork schedue. Pri'ate respondent ho$e'er, re#uar! deducts from petitioners dai! earnin#s the amount
of PG0.00 for the $ashin# of the ta(i units. Beie'in# that the deduction is ie#a, petitioners decided to
form a a"or union. Upon earnin# petitioners pan, pri'ate respondent refused to et petitioners dri'e their
ta(ica"s $hen the! reported for $ork on Au#ust D, ?@@?, and on succeedin# da!s. A##rie'ed, petitioners
5ed $ith the a"or ar"iter a compaint a#ainst pri'ate respondent for unfair a"or practice, ie#a dismissa
and ie#a deduction of $ashin# fees. 4n a decision
G
dated Au#ust G?, ?@@>, the a"or ar"iter dismissed
said compaint for ack of merit.
,n appea, the 0)RC ;pu"ic respondent herein<, in a decision dated Apri >8, ?@@B, re'ersed and set aside
the Eud#ment of the a"or ar"iter. Pri'ate respondent's 5rst motion for reconsideration $as denied. Pri'ate
respondent 5ed another motion for reconsideration. %his time, pu"ic respondent, in its decision
A
dated
,cto"er >8, ?@@B, #ranted aforesaid second motion for reconsideration. Petitioners ou#ht reconsideration
of the a"or tri"una's atest decision $hich $as denied. 1ence, this specia ci'i action for certiorari
seekin# to annu the decision
?
of pu"ic respondent promu#ated on ,cto"er >8, ?@@B.
ISSUE, 7hether or not the 0)RC acted acted $ithout or in e(cess of Eurisdiction, or $ith #ra'e a"use of
discretion in #rantin# the second motion for consideration 5ed "! pri'ate respondents.
HELD, YES.%he phrase *#ra'e a"use of discretion amountin# to ack or e(cess of Eurisdiction* has setted
meanin# in the Eurisprudence of procedure. 4t means such capricious and $himsica e(ercise of Eud#ment
"! the tri"una e(ercisin# Eudicia or 3uasi=Eudicia po$er as to amount to ack of po$er.
8
4n a"or cases, this
Court has decared in se'era instances that disre#ardin# rues it is "ound to o"ser'e constitutes #ra'e
a"use of discretion on the part of a"or tri"una.
4n this case "efore us, pri'ate respondent e(hausted administrati'e remed! a'aia"e to it "! seekin#
reconsideration of pu"ic respondent's decision dated Apri >8, ?@@B, $hich pu"ic respondent denied. 7ith
this motion for reconsideration, the a"or tri"una had ampe opportunit! to rectif! errors or mistakes it
ma! ha'e committed "efore resort to courts of Eustice can "e had.
?B
%hus, $hen pri'ate respondent 5ed a
second motion for reconsideration, pu"ic respondent shoud ha'e forth$ith denied it in accordance $ith
Rue C, +ection ?B of its 0e$ Rues of Procedure $hich ao$s on! one motion for reconsideration from the
same part!, thus:
+ec. ?B. 2otions or !econsideration. .otions for reconsideration of an! order, resoution or decision
of the Commission sha not "e entertained e(cept $hen "ased on papa"e or patent errors, pro'ided
that the motion is under oath and 5ed $ithin ten ;?0< caendar da!s from receipt of the order,
resoution or decision $ith proof of ser'ice that a cop! of the same has "een furnished $ithin the
re#ementar! period the ad'erse part! and provided urther, that only one such motion rom the same
party shall be entertained.
%he rationae for ao$in# on! one motion for reconsideration from the same part! is to assist the parties
in o"tainin# an e(peditious and ine(pensi'e settement of a"or cases. %he dispute ma! in'o'e no ess
than the i'eihood of an empo!ee and that of his o'ed ones $ho are dependent upon him for food,
sheter, cothin#, medicine, and education. 4t ma! as $e in'o'e the sur'i'a of a "usiness or an industr!.
As correct! pointed out "! petitioner, the se9n: mtin >& &e9nsi:e&-tin B.e: %1 6&iv-te
&es6n:ent is in:5%it-%.1 - 6&?i%ite: 6.e-:ing
1*
=?i9? s?5.: ?-ve nt %een ente&t-ine: -t
-... Pu"ic respondent cannot Eust disre#ard its o$n rues on the prete(t of *satisf!in# the ends of Eustice*,
?C
especia! $hen its disposition of a e#a contro'ers! ran afou $ith a cear and on# standin# Eurisprudence
in this Eurisdiction as eucidated in the su"se3uent discussion. C.e-&.1, :is&eg-&:ing - sett.e: .eg-.
:9t&ine en5n9i-te: %1 t?is C5&t is nt - =-1 > &e9ti>1ing -n e&&& & mist-8e. In 5& vie=,
65%.i9 &es6n:ent g&-ve.1 -%5se: its :is9&etin in t-8ing 9gniC-n9e -n: g&-nting 6&iv-te
&es6n:entDs se9n: mtin >& &e9nsi:e&-tin -s it =&e98s t?e &:e&.1 6&9e:5&e in see8ing
&e.ie>s in .-%& 9-ses.
22. ROMYS +REIGHT SER;ICE vs. JESUS C. CASTRO,G.R. N. 1#1*'! J5ne ), 2""*
+ACTS,Pri'ate respondent Castro $as hired "! petitioner as a mechanic in ?@CA and $as promoted to
super'isor in ?@8D. 4n ?@@B, he su9ered a stroke and foo$in# doctors ad'ice, took a ea'e of a"sence
from $ork. Pendin# reco'er!, he e(tended his ea'e se'era times. 7hie on ea'e, ho$e'er, petitioner
Roman G. Cru2 sent him se'era etters 5rst ur#in# him to return to $ork $hich the succeedin# ones
assumed the nature of sho$ cause etters re3uirin# him to e(pain $h! he shoud not "e discipined for his
proon#ed a"sence. Cru2 aso 5ed compaints for estafa and 3uai5ed theft a#ainst him. Because of these,
Castro $as constrained to 5e a case for ie#a dismissa a#ainst petitioner on the #round that Cru2s acts
constituted constructi'e dismissa $ith the Re#iona Ar"itration Branch of the 0ationa )a"or Reations
Commission ;0)RC< in Ba#uio Cit!.
,n the other hand, pri'ate respondent Oeoria $as hired "! petitioner in ?@CC as a carpenter, $as
promoted to mechanic and, in ?@@G, as senior mechanic. +ometime in the ast $eek of :e"ruar! ?@@A, he
5#ured in an accident $hen o'erheated $ater comin# from the radiator of a car he $as repairin# spurted
onto his face, "urnin# it. 1e $as forced to a"sent to under#o recuperation. 6urin# his a"sence, he recei'ed
se'era etters from Cru2F one re3uirin# him to e(pain the oss of se'era toos, another ordered him to pa!
his oan and sti another re3uired him to e(pain his a"sences. 1e $as ater char#ed for 3uai5ed theft of
the missin# toos.
>
Because of petitioners acts a#ainst him, Oeoria Eoined Castro in 5in# a case for ie#a
constructi'e dismissa a#ainst petitioner.
:or its part, petitioner denied that pri'ate respondents $ere dismissed from their empo!ment, assertin#
that pri'ate respondents a"andoned their $ork.
,n +eptem"er ?A, ?@@C, e(ecuti'e a"or ar"iter Jesseito )atoEa rued that petitioner $as #uit! of ie#a
dismissa and ordered it to pa! pri'ate respondents the tota amount of PGA>,@BB.@0, representin# ?Gth
month pa!, "ack$a#es, separation pa!, premium pa! for $ork rendered on rest da!s and hoida!s, and
attorne!s fees. Petitioner appeaed to the 0)RC $hich, in its ,cto"er >@, ?@@8 decision, re'ersed and set
aside the a"or ar"iters ruin#. A##rie'ed, pri'ate respondents 5ed a petition for certiorari under Rue DA
of the Rues of Court $ith the Court of Appeas ;CA<. ,n +eptem"er @, ?@@@, the appeate court #ranted
the petition. 4t rued that, since the 5ndin#s of the a"or ar"iter $ere supported "! su"stantia e'idence, it
shoud "e respected "! appeate tri"unas.
ISSUE, 7,0 the petition for certiorari of pri'ate respondent shoud ha'e "een dismissed outri#ht 5r faiure
to 5e a motion for reconsideration $ith the 0)RC "efore 5in# the petition for certiorari $ith the CA.
HELD, NO. As a #enera rue, a motion for reconsideration is needed "efore a petition for certiorari under
Rue DA can "e resorted to.
B
1o$e'er, there are $e reco#ni2ed e(ceptions to this rue. Pri'ate
respondents petition for certiorari "efore the CA $as co'ered "! the e(ceptions.
%he issue raised in the certiorari proceedin# "efore the appeate court, i.e., $hether pri'ate respondents
$ere constructi'e! dismissed $ithout Eust cause, $as aso the 'er! same issue raised "efore the 0)RC and
reso'ed "! it. .oreo'er, the empo!er=empo!ee reationship "et$een petitioner and pri'ate respondents
$as impressed $ith pu"ic interest.
D
%hus, it $as proper for the appeate court to take co#ni2ance of the
case e'en if no motion for reconsideration had "een 5ed "! pri'ate respondents $ith the 0)RC.
%he other issues raised "! petitioner, i.e., $hether pri'ate respondents $ere ie#a! dismissed ;as the CA
and the a"or ar"iter rued< or a"andoned their $ork ;as the 0)RC hed< and $hether the! $ere entited to
"ack$a#es, unpaid "ene5ts, separation pa! and attorne!s fees, are not proper su"Eects of a petition for
certiorari. %he! in'o'e an in3uir! into factua matters.
%he +upreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the e(traordinar! $rit of certiorari
$here neither 3uestions of fact nor of a$ are entertained, "ut on! 3uestions of ack or e(cess of
Eurisdiction or #ra'e a"use of discretion.
C
%he soe o"Eect of the $rit is to correct errors of Eurisdiction or
#ra'e a"use of discretion.
8
%he phrase #ra'e a"use of discretion has a precise meanin# in a$, denotin#
a"use of discretion *too patent and #ross as to amount to an e'asion of a positi'e dut!, or a 'irtua refusa
to perform the dut! enEoined or act in contempation of a$, or $here the po$er is e(ercised in an ar"itrar!
and despotic manner "! reason of passion and persona hostiit!.*
@
4t does not encompass an error of a$.
?0
0or does it incude a mistake in the appreciation of the contendin# parties respecti'e e'idence or the
e'auation of their reati'e $ei#ht.
%he soe o&ce of a $rit of certiorari is the correction of errors of Eurisdiction incudin# the commission of
#ra'e a"use of discretion amountin# to ack of Eurisdiction, and does not incude the re'ie$ of pu"ic
respondents e'auation of the e'idence and the factua 5ndin#s "ased thereon.
?G
%herefore, the present
petition for certiorari fais insofar as it 3uestions the a&rmation "! the CA of the factua 5ndin# of the a"or
ar"iter that pri'ate respondents $ere ie#a! dismissed, entitin# them to an a$ard of "ack$a#es, unpaid
"ene5ts, separation pa! and attorne!s fees.
0e'ertheess, a perusa of the CA decision sho$s that the 5ndin#s that petitioner faied to o'ercome the
"urden of pro'in# Eust cause for terminatin# the empo!ment of pri'ate respondents and that pri'ate
respondents did not a"andon their $ork $ere supported "! su"stantia e'idence. .oreo'er, petitioners
o"stinate insistence on the ae#ed serious misconduct ;i.e., the commission of estafa andKor 3uai5ed
theft< of pri'ate respondents "eies his caim of a"andonment as the #round for the dismissa of pri'ate
respondents. Rather, it stren#thens the 5ndin# of petitioners discrimination, insensi"iit! and anta#onism
to$ards pri'ate respondents $hich #a'e no choice to pri'ate respondents e(cept to fore#o their
empo!ment.
2'. ;ANGIE BARRAEONA vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH *1, BAGUIO CITY -n: SAN0AN
REALTY AND DE;ELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. N. 1$#2)2 A6&i. !, 2""*
+ACTS,Respondent +an=an Reat! and 6e'eopment Corporation 5ed $ith the R%C, Ba#uio Cit!, a
Compaint for Coection of +um of .one! $ith 6ama#es a#ainst Oan#ie Barra2ona ;petitioner< for faiure of
the atter to pa! the month! rentas of portions of "uidin# in Ba#uio Cit! eased to her "! the respondent
despite demands.
,n June G, >00>, petitioner 5ed a .otion to 6ismiss on the #round, amon# others, that the R%C has no
Eurisdiction o'er the compaint considerin# that the ae#ations therein cear! indicate that the action is
one for eEectment ;ie#a detainer< $hich is under the e(cusi'e Eurisdiction of the .unicipa %ria Court
;.%C<. Petitioner pointed out the foo$in# ae#ations in para#raphs B and A of the compaint sho$in# that
it is not for sum of mone! "ut for eEectment:
3. "hat the deendant has ailed to pay the rentals or the said leased premises or the month o August
4''% up to the present5
6. "hat the plaintif has demanded the deendant to pay her overdue account, now amounting to
78(%,9:9.%6, the last demand to vacate and payment o arrears having been made in writing on 2arch 4(,
4''4 xxx.
ISSUES, 7,0 petitioner shoud ha'e 5rst 5ed a motion for reconsideration "efore resortin# to the remed!
of certiorari.
HELD, 0,. 7hie the rue is that "efore certiorari ma! "e a'aied of, petitioner must 5rst 5e a motion for
reconsideration $ith the o$er court of the act or order compained of, ho$e'er, such rue is not $ithout
e(ception. 7e ha'e, in se'era instances, dispensed $ith the 5in# of a motion for reconsideration of a
o$er courts ruin#, such as: $here the proceedin#s in $hich the error occurred is a patent nuit!F
?0
$here
the 3uestion is pure! of a$F $hen pu"ic interest is in'o'edF $here Eudicia inter'ention is ur#ent or its
appication ma! cause #reat and irrepara"e dama#eF and $here the court a 3uo has no Eurisdiction, as in
this case.
2#. ESPERANEA S. LONGINO vs. ATTY. LINA A. GENERALF ATTY. NOEL A. GALAROSA > COSLAPF
ELSA P. SERRANO,G.R. N. 1#!($* +e%&5-&1 1*, 2""$
+ACTS,Phiippine 0ationa Rai$a!s ;P0R< e(ecuted Contract of )ease in fa'or of Juian /strea o'er its
propert! ocated in Oaen2uea, Buacan. %he ease a#reement $as for a period of t$o !ears and $as
rene$ed unti 6ecem"er G?, ?@@>. /strea constructed his house on the propert!.
?
,n Apri D, ?@@>,
/strea 5ed an appication $ith the P0R for a ease of an additiona 8B8 s3uare meters $ith the intention
of constructin# a ?>=door commercia apartment "uidin# on the said propert!. 1o$e'er, the P0R did not
act on the said appication. %his not$ithstandin#, /strea contracted $ith /sa +errano, o$ner and
operator of the 4.O.B. Construction +upp! at Hm. ?D, .acArthur 1i#h$a!, .aanda!, Oaen2uea, Buacan,
to ease one of the apartments, $hich $ere sti to "e constructed, to +errano. 1o$e'er, /strea faied to
construct the panned ?>=door apartment. +errano $as compeed to construct, at her e(pense, a one=door
commercia apartment and ater, another apartment on a portion of the propert! eased "! /strea from
the P0R, "ut $as a#hast to disco'er that, /strea no on#er had an e(istin# ease contract $ith the P0R.
+errano 5ed a Compaint for 6ama#es a#ainst /strea $ith the Re#iona %ria Court ;R%C< of Oaen2uea.
,n .arch G?, ?@@A, the P0R and +errano entered into a )ease Contract o'er the portion of the su"Eect
propert! $here +erranos commercia apartment "uidin# stood. %he e9ecti'it! of the contract $as unti
6ecem"er G?, ?@@A.
,n +eptem"er >8, ?@@A, the court rendered Eud#ment in fa'or of +errano and a#ainst /strea. ,n Januar!
>>, ?@@D, the P0R and +errano e(ecuted )ease Contract 0o. R=?>DDD o'er a portion of the propert! of the
P0R $ith an area of ???.?? s3uare meters, to e(pire on 6ecem"er G?, ?@@D.
8
+he constructed a "ar"er
shop and a "ar"ecue stand on a portion of the propert!.
.ean$hie, the decision of the R%C in Ci'i Case 0o. B>8C=O=@B "ecame 5na and e(ecutor!. /strea faied
to pa! the amount adEud#ed "! the court in fa'or of +errano. %he +heri9 sod the house o$ned "! /strea
at pu"ic auction to +errano on .a! A, ?@@C as the $innin# "idder.
@
+heri9 turned it o'er to +errano on
+eptem"er >G, ?@@8.
?0
7antin# to rene$ her ease $ith the P0R. +errano and her cose friend, /speran2a +. )on#ino, a P0R
retiree, e(ecuted an a#reement, in $hich +errano ao$ed her to occup! a portion of the propert! $ithout
pa!in# an! renta therefor, on )on#inos promise to hep her secure a ease contract o'er a propert! $ith
an area of ?BD s3uare meters. 6espite her a#reement $ith +errano, on Au#ust D, ?@@8, )on#ino 5ed an
appication $ith the P0R for a ease of the propert! occupied "! her $ith an area of ?BD.G0 s3uare meters
for a period of t$o months.
7hen +errano earned of the appication, she $rote the P0R on +eptem"er >D, ?@@8, citin# the decision of
the R%C in Ci'i Case 0o. B>8C=O=@B informin# the atter a"out her purchase of /streas house at pu"ic
auction. +errano aso cited her a#reement $ith )on#ino and ae#ed that the propert! appied for "!
)on#ino $as part of the propert! on $hich the house she had purchased at pu"ic auction from the +heri9
in Ci'i Case 0o. B>8C=O=@B $as ocated. +he aso decared that she had ao$ed )on#ino to occup! the said
propert!.
?>
%;vvphi%.n<t
.ean$hie, on Januar! ?@, ?@@@, the Board of 6irectors of the P0R appro'ed Resoution 0o. @@=0G,
directin# the P0R .ana#ement to desist from sein# or easin# its properties needed for the ri#ht=of=$a! of
its 0orth Rai ProEect.
?G
1o$e'er, despite the said Resoution, the Genera .ana#er of the P0R directed
6antes to prepare the contract of ease in fa'or of )on#ino. ,n Januar! >D, ?@@@, the P0R and /speran2a
)on#ino e(ecuted a )ease Contract o'er a portion of its propert! near the house of +errano, former!
o$ned "! /strea, $ith an area of ?BD s3uare meters, for a period of three months up to Apri >D, ?@@@.
)on#ino paid the amount and constructed a "ar"er shop thereon, foo$in# her demoition of the "ar"er
shop and the "ar"ecue stand then o$ned "! +errano. )on#ino then em"arked to construct her "uidin# on
the propert!.
,n :e"ruar! >A, ?@@@ +errano 5ed a hand$ritten Compaint a#ainst )on#ino, $ith the Commission on
+ettement of )and Pro"ems ;C,+)AP<. C,+)AP issued, on :e"ruar! >D, ?@@@, a status $uo order.
,n 6ecem"er ?D, ?@@@, the C,+)AP rendered a Resoution in fa'or of +errano and a#ainst )on#ino.
)on#ino faied to appea the same.
>B
4nstead, on Januar! ?@, >000, she sent a etter to the Genera .ana#er
of the P0R, ur#in# the atter to disre#ard the resoutionKrecommendation of the C,+)AP for "ein# partia!
irre#uar.
ISSUE,7,0 the petition for prohi"ition under Rue DA of the Rues of Court $as the proper remed! of the
petitioner.
HELD,-/+. Rue DA, +ection > of the Rues of Court pro'ides:
+ection >. Petition for prohi"ition. 7hen the proceedin#s of an! tri"una, corporation, "oard, or
person, $hether e(ercisin# functions Eudicia or ministeria, are $ithout or in e(cess of its or his
Eurisdiction, or $ith #ra'e a"use of discretion, and there is no appea or an! other pain, speed!, and
ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of a$, a person a##rie'ed there"! ma! 5e a 'eri5ed petition
in the proper court ae#in# the facts $ith certaint! and pra!in# that Eud#ment "e rendered
commandin# the defendant to desist from further proceedin#s in the action or matter speci5ed
therein.
%he petition sha "e accompanied "! a certi5ed true cop! of the Eud#ment or order su"Eect thereof,
to#ether $ith copies of a peadin#s and documents ree'ant and pertinent thereto. %he principa
purpose for the $rit of prohi"ition is to pre'ent an encroachment, e(cess, usurpation or assumption of
Eurisdiction on the part of an inferior court or 3uasi=Eudicia tri"una. 4t is #ranted $hen it is necessar!
for the order! administration of Eustice, or pre'ent the use of the stron# arm of the a$ in an
oppressi'e or 'indicti'e manner, or mutipicit! of actions. %he $rits of certiorari and prohi"ition, for
that matter, are intended to annu or 'oid proceedin#s in order to insure the fair and order!
administration of Eustice.
:or a part! to "e entited to a $rit of prohi"ition, he must esta"ish the foo$in# re3uisites: ;a< it must
"e directed a#ainst a tri"una, corporation, "oard or person e(ercisin# functions, Eudicia or ministeriaF
;"< the tri"una, corporation, "oard or person has acted $ithout or in e(cess of its Eurisdiction, or $ith
#ra'e a"use of discretionF and ;c< there is no appea or an! other pain, speed!, and ade3uate remed!
in the ordinar! course of a$.G0
:or #ra'e a"use of discretion to prosper as a #round for prohi"ition, it must 5rst "e demonstrated that
the o$er court or tri"una has e(ercised its po$er in an ar"itrar! and despotic manner, "! reason of
passion or persona hostiit!, and it must "e patent and #ross as $oud amount to an e'asion or to a
uniatera refusa to perform the dut! enEoined or to act in contempation of a$. /(cess of Eurisdiction
si#ni5es that the court, "oard or o&ce has Eurisdiction o'er the case "ut has transcended the same or
acted $ithout authorit!.G? %he $rit of prohi"ition $i not ie to enEoin acts aread! done.G> 1o$e'er,
as an e(ception to the rue on mootness, courts $i decide a 3uestion other$ise moot if it is capa"e
of repetition !et e'adin# re'ie$.
4n a case $here a o$er court or 3uasi=Eudicia "od! commits an error in the e(cess of its Eurisdiction, if
such error is one of Eud#ment, it is re'oca"e on! "! appea. ,n the other hand, if the act compained
of $as issued "! such court or "od! $ith #ra'e a"use of discretion, $hich is tantamount to ack or in
e(cess of Eurisdiction, the remed! of the a##rie'ed part! is to 5e a petition for certiorari andKor
prohi"ition under Rue DA of the Rues of Court.GB 4ndeed, a decision of a court $ithout Eurisdiction is
nu and 'oid. 4t coud ne'er "ecome 5na and e(ecutor!F hence, appea therefrom "! $rit of error is
out of the 3uestion. %he a##rie'ed part! shoud 5e a petition for certiorari or prohi"ition under Rue
DA of the Rues of Court.GA
A remed! is considered pain, speed! and ade3uate if it $i prompt! reie'e the petitioner from the
inEurious e9ects of the Eud#ment or rue, order or resoution of the o$er court or a#enc!. GD 7hie
ordinari!, certiorari or prohi"ition for that matter is una'aiin# $here the appea period had apsed,
t?e s-me m-1 %e -v-i.e: > =?e&e-s in t?e 6&esent 9-se, 65%.i9 =e.>-&e -n: t?e
-:minist&-tin > 65%.i9 6.i91 :i9t-tesF =?e&e t?e %&-:e& inte&est > G5sti9e s &eH5i&esF
=?e&e t?e =&its iss5e: -&e n5.. -n: vi:F =?e&e t?e H5estine: &:e& -m5nts t -n
66&essive e49ess > G5:i9i-. -5t?&it1.'!
4n the present case, the petition for prohi"ition 5ed $ith the CA "! the petitioner coud ha'e "een
dismissed "! the CA "ecause the structures on the propert! had aread! "een demoishedF hence, the
acts sou#ht to "e enEoined "! the petitioner had aread! "een e9ected "! the respondent sheri9. :or
another reason, the ease contract of the petitioner and the P0R had not "een rene$ed after its
e(piration on Januar! >D, >000. .anifest!, the petitioner $as o"i#ed to 'acate the propert! and
remo'e her structures thereon. Neve&t?e.ess, t?e CA t8 9gniC-n9e > t?e 6etitin -n:
&es.ve: t?e s-me n its me&its, 6&e9ise.1 %e9-5se t?e iss5es &-ise: t?e&ein, n-me.1,
=?et?e& t?e COSLAP ?-: G5&is:i9tin ve& t?e 9m6.-int > t?e 6&iv-te &es6n:entF -n:
=?et?e& t?e COSLAP e49ee:e: its G5&is:i9tin in :e9.-&ing t?e 6&iv-te &es6n:ent t?e .eg-.
6ssess& > t?e 6&6e&t1 -n: > ?-ving 6&i&it1 in .e-sing t?e s5%Ge9t 6&6e&t1 &-ise: in
t?e 6etitin, =e&e s5%st-nti-..
2$. PILO MILITANTE vs. HON. COURT O+ APPEALS,G.R. N. 1"!"#" A6&i. 12, 2"""
+ACTS,Petitioner Pio .iitante is the re#istered o$ner of three ;G< conti#uous parces of and in
Bainta$ak, Caoocan Cit! co'ered "! %C% 0os. AG0DD=A, AG0DC and AG0D8, a deri'ed from %C% 0o. C?GAC
issued "! the Re#ister of 6eeds of Caoocan Cit! $ith t$ent!=four ;>B< s3uatter famiies i'e in said ots. 4n
?@CA, President .arcos issued Presidentia 6ecree ;P.6.< 0o. ?G?A
>
e(propriatin# fort! ;B0< hectares of and
in Ba#on# Barrio, Caoocan Cit!, co'ered "! %C% 0os. C0>@8, and CG@D0, and portions of %C% 0os. C?GAC,
>0?C and >0?8.
%he 01A, as the decree's desi#nated administrator for the nationa #o'ernment, undertook the
impementation of P.6. ?G?A. %he properties co'ered "! Phases ? to D $ere ac3uired in ?@C8 and ?@C@.
BBP Phase C, $hich incudes petitioner's and, $as not amon# those ac3uired and paid for in ?@C8=?@C@.
,n +eptem"er ??, ?@C@, Procamation 0o. ?8@G decared the entire .etropoitan .ania area as Ur"an
)and Reform Mone. .ean$hie, on June >, ?@C8, P.6. 0o. ?G@D created the 6epartment of 1uman
+ettements ;61+< and paced the 01A under the super'ision of said 6epartment.
A
,n :e"ruar! C, ?@8?,
/(ecuti'e ,rder 0o. DB8 transferred the re#uator! functions of the 01A to the 1uman +ettements
Re#uator! Commission ;1+RC<, a 3uasi=Eudicia "od! attached to the 61+.
D
0n *eptember 43, %89%, petitioner wrote the =*!# seeking a declaration o non)coverage rom the >rban
-and !eorm 7rogram o the government. ,n ,cto"er >, ?@8?, 1+RC Commissioner Ra!mundo R. 6i2on, Jr.
issued a certi5cate decarin# petitioner's ots *outside the decared Ur"an )and Reform Mone.* 7ith this
certi5cate, petitioner asked the 01A to reocate the s3uatters on his and. %he 01A caed the s3uatters for
a diao#ue *to ook into the possi"iit! of amica"! settin# the e'iction pro"em andKor to 5nd out $h! a
cearance shoud "e issued or not for the remo'aKdemoition of a the ie#a structures in the said
propert!.*
@
%he s3uatters did not attend the meetin#. ,n Januar! >?, ?@8>, 01A Genera .ana#er %o"ias
#ranted cearance to dismante and remo'e a ie#a structures on petitioner's propert! $ithin three ;G<
months from receipt of the order and for the reocation of the >B famiies to the +apan# Paa! Resettement
ProEect. %he cearance $as addressed to .a!or Asistio.%he demoition did not take pace.
:our ;B< !ears ater, in ?@8D, BBP Phase C $as isted as amon# the priorit! proEects for impementation
under the #o'ernment's Communit! +ef=1ep Pro#ram. %he 01A, throu#h Genera %o"ias, appro'ed an
emer#enc! fund of P> miion for the ac3uisition of petitioner's ots. 01A started ne#otiations $ith
petitioner. 4n ?@8C, petitioner, throu#h an authori2ed representati'e, made an initia o9er of P>00.00 per
s3uare meter. Petitioner increased his price to P?,000.00 and ater to PG,000.00. 01A Genera .ana#er
Ra!mundo R. 6i2on, Jr. informed petitioner that 01A's ma(imum o9er $as PA00.00. %his $as reEected "!
petitioner.
,n +eptem"er 8, ?@@0, petitioner, re3uested for a re'aidation of his demoition cearance and reocation
of the s3uatters. ,n Januar! ?A, ?@@?, 01A Genera .ana#er .onico Jaco" re'aidated the demoition
cearance and informed .a!or Asistio that the 01A $as makin# a'aia"e enou#h ser'iced home ots in
Ba#on# +ian# Resettement ProEect for the >B famiies. Respondent Anna"ee Caran#dan#, 01A ProEect
.ana#er in Ba#on# Barrio, refused to impement the cearance to eEect the s3uatters on petitioner's and
caimin# that petitioners and had aread! "een decared e(propriated "! P.6. ?G?A.
ISSUE, 7,0 petitioner is entited to $rit of prohi"ition and mandamus to compe respondent Anna"ee
Caran#dan# to e9ect the directi'eKmemorandum of reocationKresettement su"Eectin# the said >B s3uatter
famiies from una$fu! occup!in# petitioners su"Eect propert! $ithout decarin# P6 ?G?A as 'oid and
unconstitutiona.
HELD, ?irst. Petitioner is not entited to the $rit of prohi"ition and mandamus. +ection > of Rue DA
pro'ides:
+ec. >. 7etition or prohibition. 7hen the proceedin#s of an! tri"una, corporation, "oard, or person,
$hether e(ercisin# functions Eudicia or ministeria, are $ithout or in e(cess of its Eurisdiction, or $ith
#ra'e a"use of discretion, and there is no appea or an! other pain, speed! and ade3uate remed! in
the ordinar! course of a$, a person a##rie'ed there"! ma! 5e a 'eri5ed petition in the proper court
ae#in# the facts $ith certaint! and pra!in# that Eud#ment "e rendered commandin# the defendant to
desist from further proceedin#s in the action or matter speci5ed therein.
Prohi"ition is a pre'enti'e remed!.
>?
4t seeks for a Eud#ment orderin# the defendant to desist from
continuin# $ith the commission of an act 6e&9eive: to "e ie#a. 4n the case at "ar, petitioner does
not pra! that respondent Caran#dan# shoud "e ordered to desist from reocatin# the s3uatters. 7hat
petitioner chaen#es is respondent Caran#dan#'s refusa to impement the demoition cearance issued
"! her administrati'e superiors. %he remed! for a refusa to dischar#e a e#a dut! is mandamus, not
prohi"ition.
*econd. %he petitioner is not aso entited to a $rit of mandamus. +ection G, Rue DA pro'ides:
+ec. G. 7etition or mandamus. 7hen an! tri"una, corporation, "oard, or person, una$fu! ne#ects
the performance of an act $hich the a$ speci5ca! enEoins as a dut! resutin# from an o&ce, trust or
station, or una$fu! e(cudes another from the use and enEo!ment of a ri#ht or o&ce to $hich such
other is entited, and there is no other pain, speed!, and ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of
a$, the person a##rie'ed there"! ma! 5e a 'eri5ed petition in the proper court ae#in# the facts $ith
certaint! and pra!in# that Eud#ment "e rendered commandin# the defendant, immediate! or at some
other speci5ed time, to do the act re3uired to "e done to protect the ri#hts of petitioner, and to pa! the
dama#es sustained "! the petitioner "! reason of the $ron#fu acts of the defendant.
.andamus is a $rit commandin# a tri"una, corporation, "oard, or person to do the act re3uired to "e
done $hen it or he una$fu! ne#ects the performance of an act $hich the a$ speci5ca! enEoins as a
dut! resutin# from an o&ce, trust or station, or una$fu! e(cudes another from the use and
enEo!ment of a ri#ht or o&ce to $hich such other is entited, there "ein# no other pain, speed!, and
ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of a$.
>G
4t is incum"ent upon petitioner to sho$ that he has a $e=de5ned, cear and certain ri#ht to $arrant
the #rant of the $rit of mandamus. >B 1e faied to dischar#e this "urden. %he records sho$ that there
is no direct order from the 01A Genera .ana#er addressed to respondent Caran#dan# to e'ict the
s3uatters and demoish their shanties on the su"Eect propert!. %he 01A demoition cearance issued "!
Genera %o"ias on Januar! >?, ?@8> $as addressed to .a!or Asistio, the ma!or of Caoocan Cit!. %he
cearance's re'aidation "! 01A Genera .ana#er .onico Jaco" $as ike$ise addressed to .a!or
Asistio.
:urthermore, mandamus is an e(traordinar! remed! that ma! "e a'aied of on! $hen there is no pain,
speed! and ade3uate remed! in the ordinar! course of a$. A petition for mandamus is premature if
there are administrati'e remedies a'aia"e to the petitioner. 4n the instant case, petitioner has not
e(hausted his administrati'e remedies. 1e ma! seek another demoition order from the 01A Genera
.ana#er this time direct! addressed to respondent Caran#dan# or the pertinent 01A representati'e.