WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)

XI.C MADRIGAL TRANSPORT V. LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORP., No.

G.R. NO. 156067, AUGUST 11, 2004 MATA Supreme Court held thatwhen any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
The special civil action for certiorari and appeal are two excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
different remedies that are mutually exclusive; they are not amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no
alternative or successive. Where appeal is available,certiorari will appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition
Certiorari is not a substitute for the lapsed remedy of in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
appeal. judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of
such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as
Facts: law and justice may require.
On February 9, 1998, Petitioner Madrigal Transport, Inc.
(Madrigal) filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency before the The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 49. Later, on February of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
21, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for damages against pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
Respondents Lapanday Holdings Corporation (Lapanday), sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
Macondray and Company, Inc. (Macondray), and Luis P. Lorenzo Jr. paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
before the RTC of Manila, Branch 36.
Further, a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the
In the latter action, Madrigal alleged that it had entered into correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
a joint venture agreement with Lapanday for the primary purpose of amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used
operating vessels to service the shipping requirements of Del Monte for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the
Philippines, Inc however, despite demands, Lapanday and Lorenzo inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.
had allegedly been unable to deliver those Del Monte charter hire
contracts. The following requisites must concur for certiorari to
prosper: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any
On February 23, 1998, the insolvency court (RTC Branch officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such
49) declared petitioner insolvent.On March 30, 1998 and April 6, tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of
1998, Respondents Lapanday, Lorenzo and Macondray filed their jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
respective Motions to Dismiss on the complaint for damages filed by excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy
the Petitioner. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

On December 16, 1998, Branch 36 granted the Motion, for Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action
failure of the Complaint to state a cause of action.  Applying Sections for certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal (including
32 and 33 of the Insolvency Law , the trial court opined that upon the petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not
filing by Madrigal of a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency, the latter alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a
lost the right to institute the Complaint for Damages. The RTC ruled substitute for an appeal, especially if one’s own negligence or error
that the exclusive right to prosecute the actions belonged to the in ones choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. Whenan
court-appointed assignee. appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground
therefor is grave abuse of discretion.
On January 26, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final
Reconsideration(MR), but was denied by the said court July 26, 1999. order.It is not interlocutory because the proceedings are terminated;
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court it leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. Therefore the
of Appeals, seeking to set aside the December 16, 1998(the one remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order.
which granted the MD of the Complaint for damages) and the July 26,
1999( the one which denied the MR) Orders of the trial court.On In this case, the RTC did not rendered a decision that is in in
January 10, 2000, the appellate court ruled that since the main issue excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
in the instant case was purely legal, the Petition could be treated as to lack or excess of its jurisdiction when it dismissed the complaint
one for review as an exception to the general rule that certiorari was on the ground that there was no cause of action as per supported by
not proper when appeal was available. This was later on challenged the facts of the case. Since, it was the order of dismissal that was
by the Respondents via their MRs. The Court of Appeals dismissed questioned, a certiorari is improper because it can be cured through
Madrigals Petition for Certiorari. The CA opined that an order an appeal. There are exceptional circumstances that the Supreme
granting a motion to dismiss was final and thus the proper subject of Court may grant certiorari despite the availability of appeal however,
an appeal, not certiorari. It averred that even if the Petition could be in this case, Petitioner did not show that the court, order constitutes
treated as an appeal, it would still have to be dismissed for lack of a despotic, capricious, or whimsical exercise of power, but it availed
jurisdiction because the issues raised by petitioner involved pure certiorari because the 15-day period within which to file an appeal
questions of law that should be brought to the Supreme Court, had already lapsed. Petition is denied.
pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 50 and Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court. Quick digest:

Hence, the petition. ABC Transport filed Petition for Voluntary Insolvencyin an
insolvency court. Later on, it filed a complaint for damages against
Issue: DEF Corporation for failure to comply the agreement in their
contract in another court. The insolvency case was granted. DEF
Is the petition for certiorari proper? Corporation filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that there was
no cause of action because the complaint for damages must be filed
Ruling: at the insolvency court where ABC Transport filed its insolvency case
as provided by the Insolvency Law. The RTC order dismissal to the

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  1

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
Complaint for damages for lack of cause of action. ABC Transport from.  Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant must file a
then filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals over the notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty days from the
order of dismissal of the RTC. As a judge, will you grant the petition said notice of judgment or final order. A petition for review should be
for certiorari? filed and served within fifteen days from the notice of denial of the
decision, or of the petitioners timely filed motion for new trial or
No. motion for reconsideration. In an appeal bycertiorari, the petition
should be filed also within fifteen days from the notice of judgment
or final order, or of the denial of the petitioners motion for new trial
Supreme Court held that where appeal is available to the or motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, a petition
aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. for certiorari should be filed not later than sixty days from the notice
Remedies of appeal, including petitions for review, and certiorari are of judgment, order, or resolution.  If a motion for new trial or motion
mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Certiorari is not for reconsideration was timely filed, the period shall be counted
and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one’s own from the denial of the motion.
negligence or error in ones choice of remedy occasioned such loss or
lapse. When an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even
if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for
reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a petition
for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to
The following requisites must concur for certiorari to correct the alleged errors.
prosper: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such
XI.F TOPACIO V. ONG, G.R. NO. 179895, DECEMBER 18, 2008
tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or CABUENAS CLEA
excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Principle:

The title to a public office may not be contested except directly, by a

An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final
order. It is not interlocutory because the proceedings are quo warranto proceedings, and it cannot be assailed collaterally, even
terminated; it leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. through mandamus or a motion to annul or set aside order. In
Therefore the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order. Nacionalista Party v. De Vera, the Court ruled that prohibition does
not lie to inquire into the validity of the appointment of a public
In this case, the order of dismissal rendered by the RTC is a officer.
final order in which it can avail appeal within its given period.
However, ABC Transport failed to file an appeal within its required FACTS: Petitioner via the present petition for certiorari and
period. Neither had it appeared that there was an excess of prohibition seeks to prevent Justice Ong from further exercising the
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess powers, duties and responsibilities of a Sandiganbayan Associate
of jurisdiction that was exercised by the RTC. Therefore, the petition
Justice.
for certiorari was improper.
In Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, the Court enjoined Ong from
Side Notes: accepting an appointment to the position of Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court or assuming position and discharging the functions of
Discussion of the difference between appeal and certiorari. that office, until he shall have successfully completed all necessary
steps, through appropriate adversarial proceedings in court, to show
As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen and correct the records of
correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Even if
his birth and citizenship.
the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction
over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province
Ong immediately filed with the RTC a Petition for the
of certiorari. On the other hand, where the error is not one of
jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact -- a mistake of judgment -- “amendment/correction/supplementation or annotation of an entry
appeal is the remedy. in his Certificate of Birth. The RTC granted his petition and
recognized him as a natural-born citizen.
As to the Manner of Filing. Over an appeal, the CA exercises its
appellate jurisdiction and power of review. Over a certiorari, the Petitioner implored respondent OSG to initiate post-haste a quo
higher court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance with its warranto proceeding against Ong in the latter’s capacity as an
power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower incumbent Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan because Ong failed
courts. An appeal is thus a continuation of the original suit, while a to meet the citizenship requirement form the time of his
petition for certiorari is an original and independent action that was appointment.
not part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the judgment
or order complained of. The parties to an appeal are the original Hence this petition.
parties to the action. In contrast, the parties to a petition
for certiorari are the aggrieved party (who thereby becomes the
ISSUES:
petitioner) against the lower court or quasi-judicial agency, and the
prevailing parties (the public and the private respondents,
respectively). 1. Whether the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion in
deferring the filing of a petition for quo warranto.
As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary appeals should be filed within
fifteen days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  2

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
2. Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by show a clear right to the contested office. In fact, not
petitioner partakes of the nature of a quo warranto even a mere preferential right to be appointed thereto can
proceeding with respect to Ong. lend a modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action.

HELD: In the present case, petitioner presented no sufficient proof

1. No. of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office of an
The Court appreciates no abuse of discretion, much less, a Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. He in fact concedes
grave one, on the part of the OSG in deferring action on the that he was never entitled to assume the office of an
filing of a quo warranto case until after the RTC case has Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.
been terminated with finality. A decision is not deemed
tainted with grave abuse of discretion simply because the The rightful authority of a judge, in the full exercise of his
affected party disagrees with it. The Solicitor General is the public judicial functions, cannot be questioned by any
counsel of the government, its agencies and merely private suitor, or by any other, except in the form
instrumentalities, and its officials or agents. In the especially provided by law. To uphold such action would
discharge of its task, the Solicitor General must see to it that encourage every disgruntled citizen to resort to the courts,
the best interest of the government is upheld within the thereby causing incalculable mischief and hindrance to the
limits set by law. efficient operation of the governmental machine.

2. Yes. Petition dismissed.

While denominated as a petition for certiorari and
prohibition, the petition partakes of the nature of a quo
warranto proceeding with respect to Ong, for it effectively SHORT DIGEST:
seeks to declare null and void his appointment as an
Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan for being X filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Justice Y from
unconstitutional. While the petition professes to be one for further exercising the powers, duties and responsibilities of a
certiorari and prohibition, petitioner even adverts to a "quo Sandiganbayan Associate Justice.
warranto" aspect of the petition.
X contends that Ong should immediately desist from holding the
Being a collateral attack on a public officer's title, the position of Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan since he is
present petition for certiorari and prohibition must be
disqualified on the basis of citizenship. (Y alleged to be a Chinese
dismissed.
The title to a public office may not be contested except citizen).
directly, by quo warranto proceedings; and it cannot be
assailed collaterally, even through mandamus or a motion ISSUE: Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by
to annul or set aside order. In Nacionalista Party v. de Vera, petitioner partakes of the nature of a quo warranto proceeding with
the Court ruled that prohibition does not lie to inquire into respect to Ong.
the validity of the appointment of a public officer.
HELD: Yes.
. . . [T]he writ of prohibition, even when directed against
While denominated as a petition for certiorari and prohibition, the
persons acting as judges or other judicial officers, cannot be
petition partakes of the nature of a quo warranto proceeding with
treated as a substitute for quo warranto or be rightfully
respect to Ong, for it effectively seeks to declare null and void his
called upon to perform any of the functions of the writ. If
appointment as an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan for being
there is a court, judge or officer de facto , the title to the
unconstitutional. While the petition professes to be one for certiorari
office and the right to act cannot be questioned by
and prohibition, petitioner even adverts to a "quo warranto" aspect
prohibition. If an intruder takes possession of a judicial
of the petition.
office, the person dispossessed cannot obtain relief through
a writ of prohibition commanding the alleged intruder to
Even if the Court treats the case as one for quo warranto, the petition
cease from performing judicial acts, since in its very nature
is, just the same, dismissible.
prohibition is an improper remedy by which to determine
the title to an office.
A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine
the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder
Even if the Court treats the case as one for quo warranto,
from its enjoyment. It is brought against the person who is alleged to
the petition is, just the same, dismissible.
have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised the
public office, and may be commenced by the Solicitor General or a
A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to
public prosecutor, as the case may be, or by any person claiming to
determine the right or title to the contested public office
be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held
and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is brought
or exercised by another.
against the person who is alleged to have usurped, intruded
into, or unlawfully held or exercised the public office, and
may be commenced by the Solicitor General or a public XI.G MORABE V. BROWN, G.R. NO. L-6018, MAY 31, 1954
prosecutor, as the case may be, or by any person claiming CANETE FRANCIS
to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or
unlawfully held or exercised by another. PRINCIPLE:

Nothing is more settled than the principle, which goes back “The action of the petitioner is not an action of injunction but
to the 1905 case of Acosta v. Flor, reiterated in the recent one of mandamus, because it seeks the performance of a legal duty,
2008 case of Feliciano v. Villasin, that for a quo warranto the reinstatement of Pablo S. Afuang. The writ known as preliminary
petition to be successful, the private person suing must

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  3

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
mandatory injunction is also a mandamus, though merely provisional may not be reinstated because he has already been dismissed; there
in character.” would not be any remedy against the injustice done him, or for him
to return to the position or employment from which he was
FACTS: unlawfully discharged.
Respondent William Brown had dismissed his employee,
Pablo S. Afuang, because he was one of the complainants in an The judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and the
investigation conducted by the petitioner Emiliano Morabe, Acting respondent William Brown is hereby ordered to reinstate Pablo S.
Chief, Wage Administration Service,of charges against the Afuang to the position he held prior to his dismissal.
respondent that the latter paid his employees beyond the time fixed
in Republic Act No. 602.
QUICK DIGEST:
An original petition filed by the petitioner in the Court of
First Instance of Manila praying that the respondent be ordered to FACTS:
reinstate Pablo S. Afuang, and that a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction issue for his reinstatement.The court issued a writ of Petitioner Morabe filed the original petitionin the CFI of
preliminary mandatory injunction. Manila praying that the respondent be ordered to reinstate Pablo S.
Afuang and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issue for his
The respondent presented a petition asking for the reinstatement. The latter was dismissed by the respondent on the
dismissal of the petition on the ground that Pablo S. Afuang had ground that he was one of the complainants in an investigation
presented a letter asking excuse or apology from the respondent for conducted by the petitionerof charges against the respondent that
having taken his case to court. However, his motion was not acted the latter paid his employees beyond the time fixed in Republic Act
upon and the case was heard and the parties presented their No. 602.
evidence.
The CFI rendered judgment finding that the dismissal from
The CFI rendered judgment finding that the dismissal from the service of Pablo S. Afuang is unlawful and violates section 13 of
the service of Pablo S. Afuang is unlawful and violates section 13 of the Minimum Wage Law. The court, however, refused to grant an
the Minimum Wage Law, because the fact that he testified at the order for the reinstatement of said Pablo S. Afuang on the ground
investigation is not a valid ground for his dismissal from the service. that this remedy, which it considers as an injunction, is available only
The court, however, refused to grant an order for the reinstatement against acts about to be committed or actually being committed, and
of said Pablo S. Afuang on the ground that this remedy, which it not against past acts.
considers as an injunction, is available only against acts about
to be committed or actually being committed, and not against ISSUE:WON the CFI erred in not ordering the respondent to
past acts; reinstate Pablo S. Afuang in the service.

ISSUE: WON the CFI erred in not ordering the respondent to HELD: YES.
reinstate Pablo S. Afuang in the service. It is evident that the court a quo  erred in considering that
mandatory injunction is preventive in nature, and may not be
HELD:YES. granted by the Court of First Instance once the act complained of has
It is evident that the court a quo  erred in considering that been carried out. The action of the petitioner is not an action of
mandatory injunction is preventive in nature, and may not be injunction but one of mandamus, because it seeks the performance of
granted by the Court of First Instance once the act complained of has a legal duty, the reinstatement of Pablo S. Afuang. The writ known as
been carried out.The action of the petitioner is not an action of preliminary mandatory injunction is also a mandamus, though
injunction but one of mandamus, because it seeks the performance of merely provisional in character.
a legal duty, the reinstatement of Pablo S. Afuang. The writ known as
preliminary mandatory injunction is also amandamus, though
merely provisional in character.
XI.K HERRERA V. BARRETTO, 25 PHIL. 245 TRIXIE SEE XI.P
In the case at bar, Pablo S. Afuang was entitled to continue
in the service of respondent, because his act is expressly provided to Jurisdiction Exercise of
be no ground or reason for an employee's dismissal. Section 13 of Jurisdiction
Republic Act No. 602 states that "it shall be unlawful for any person
to discharge or in any other manner to discriminate against any Jurisdiction is the Where there is
employee because such employee has filed any complaint or authority to hear and jurisdiction of the
instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related determine a cause — person and subject
to this Act. Pablo S. Afuang was, therefore, unlawfully deprived of his matter, as we have
right or privilege to continue in the service of the respondent, the right to act in a said before, the
because his dismissal was unlawful or illegal. Having been deprived
case. Since it is the decision of all other
of such right or privilege, it is within the competence of courts to
compel the respondent to admit him back to his service. power to hear and questions arising in
determine, it does not the case is but an
In Manila Electric Co. vs. Del Rosario and Jose,the lower depend either upon exercise of that
court ordered the Manila Electric Co. to furnish electric current to the regularity of the jurisdiction.
Jose, the electric company having cut the current to Jose's house exercise of that power
because it suspected him of stealing electricity by the use of a or upon the
jumper. This Court held that the action was not one of injunction but rightfulness of the
of mandamus, as it compelled the electric company to furnish Jose decisions made.
with electric service. In the case at bar, the court can also order the
respondent to reinstate Pablo S. Afuang. Were we to hold that Afuang

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  4

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
correct errors of judgment committed by the court. Errors of
judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court's
The authority to findings. Where a court has jurisdiction over the person and
decide a cause at all, subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the
and not the decision case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors
rendered therein, is committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors
what makes up of judgment.
jurisdiction.
FACTS:

- The case involves MICROSOFT CORPORATION fighting to protect its

Facts: intellectual property rights through filing a complaint for Injunction
and Damages with Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining
The case at bar involves a motion for certiorari by the
Order and the Provisional Measure of Preservation of Evidence
petitioner against Judge Barretto for allegedly acting without
against Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, Perfect Deal
jurisdiction on the case involving the cockpit license permit of
Corporation and Marcos C. Yuen doing business as Perfect Byte
Constancio Joaquin which the petitioner, in his capacity of the
Computer Center alleging that defendants without authority or
Caloocan Municipal President revoked to operate. Respondent judge
license copied, reproduced, distributed, installed and/or loaded
apparently issued a provisional license upon the filing of Joaquin for
software programs owned by Microsoft into computer units sold by
a mandatory injunction without notice to the petitioner. The
them to their customers. Furthermore, it prayed for the issuance of a
petitioner now files a motion for certiorari before the higher court
writ of preliminary injunction to restrain and enjoin defendants from
against the respondent for acting in excess of jurisdiction for issuing
illegally reproducing, selling and distributing unlicensed software
the mandatory injunction of provisional license.
programs and also applied for the issuance of an ex parte order for
the seizure and impounding of relevant evidence that can be or may
Issue: WON a writ of certiorari the proper action on the case at bar.
be found at defendants' business premises.

Ruling: -The Las Pinas trial court set petitioner's prayer for a temporary
restraining order for hearing but at the same time denied its
No. A writ for certiorari is not issued unless it is established
application for an ex parte order ratiocinating that the Intellectual
whether or not the court to which it is directed acted without or in
Property Code does not expressly allow its issuance and that, in any
excess of jurisdiction. Once the court has jurisdiction over the subject
case, the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
matter and parties in a case all decisions exercised within its
Rights) AGREEMENT cannot prevail over it, and that petitioner's
jurisdiction, however erroneous or irregular, cannot be corrected by
application partook of a search and seizure order available only in
certiorari. The court held that the CFI has the jurisdiction over the
criminal cases.
present case to resolve all matters arising in question.Court held
that  -In the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court petitioner submits that the court a quo gravely abused
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause —the its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
right to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it ruled that the law does not allow an ex parte provisional remedy of
does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that seizure and impounding of infringing evidence. It maintains that Sec.
power or upon the rightfulness of the decisions made. Jurisdiction 216.2, Part IV, of RA 8293 authorizes such order. It concedes though
should therefore be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. that while RA 8293 does not expressly mention the provisional and
The authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered ex parte nature of the remedy, nonetheless, Art. 50 of the TRIPS
therein, is what makes up jurisdiction. Agreement amply supplies the deficiency. It allegedly resorted to the
instant recourse because it had no appeal or any plain, speedy and
Certiorari on one hand may not be used to correct errors committed adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It automatically
within the jurisdiction of the court no matter how irregular or invoked the jurisdiction of this Court supposedly because of the
erroneous it is. importance of the issue involved. It bypassed the Court of Appeals on
the premise that it would be useless to first seek recourse thereat as
XI.L MICROSOFT CORP. V. BEST DEAL COMPUTER CENTER
the party aggrieved by the appellate court's ruling would
CORP., G.R. NO. 148029, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 LAMBAN
nonetheless elevate the matter to this Court. By then, petitioner
surmised, the level of intellectual piracy would have worsened.
PRINCIPLE:
Likewise, petitioner presumes that direct resort to this Court is
Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed for the justified as the petition involves a pure question of law.
correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.
Issue:

1. Whether or not Petition for Certiorari can be exercised to correct

The distinction is clear: A petition for certiorari seeks to correct public respondent's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings.
errors of jurisdiction while a petition for review seeks to

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  5

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
2. Whether acts complained of by the petitioner constitutes error of case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors
judgement or error of jurisdiction. committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors
of judgment. Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed for
Held: the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of
judgment.
1. Negative.
Quick Digest of Facts:
- Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed for the
correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. - The case involves MICROSOFT CORPORATION fighting to protect
its intellectual property rights through filing a complaint for
-The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of Injunction and Damages with Ex Parte Application for Temporary
jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion Restraining Order and the Provisional Measure of Preservation of
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and does not include correction of Evidence against Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, Perfect
public respondent's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings Deal Corporation and Marcos C. Yuen doing business as Perfect Byte
thereon. Computer Center alleging that defendants without authority or
license copied, reproduced, distributed, installed and/or loaded
-The petition for certiorari must be based on jurisdictional grounds
software programs owned by Microsoft into computer units sold by
because as long as the respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error
them to their customers with prayer of issuance of a writ of
committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing
preliminary injunction to restrain and enjoin defendants from
more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected
illegally reproducing, selling and distributing unlicensed software
only by appeal. Even an abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself
programs and an application for the issuance of an ex parte order for
to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
the seizure and impounding of relevant evidence that can be or may
2. Acts complained of constitutes error of judgement be found at defendants' business premises. But the trial court denied
its application for an ex parte order.
-Section 19, par. (8), BP Blg. 129, as amended, provides that Regional
Trial Courts in Metro Manila shall have exclusive original jurisdiction -A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed submitting that the
in all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of court a quo gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess
whatever kind, attorneys fees, costs or the value of the property in of jurisdiction when it ruled that the law does not allow an ex parte
controversy exceeds P200,000.00. In the complaint filed before the provisional remedy of seizure and impounding of infringing
court a quo, petitioner averred that it incurred no less evidence.
thanP750,000.00 in attorney's fees, investigation and litigation
XI.M CAMPOS V. WISLIZENUS, 35 PHIL. 373 FERNANDEZ
expenses and another P2,000,000.00 by way of moral damages.
Clearly, the above amounts fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court. Also, the complaint was properly lodged in the Regional PRINCIPLE:
Trial Court of Las Pias considering that one of the principal
defendants was residing thereat. The general rule is that, where the jurisdiction of the court
depends upon the existence of facts, and the court judicially
-Petitioner asserts that respondent trial court gravely abused its considers and adjudicates the question of its jurisdiction, and
discretion in denying its application for the issuance of an ex parte decides that the fact exist which are necessary to give it
order. However, other than this bare allegation, petitioner failed to jurisdiction of the case, the finding is conclusive and cannot be
point out specific instances where grave abuse of discretion was controverted in a collateral proceeding.
allegedly committed. It was never shown how respondent tribunal
supposedly exercised its power in a despotic, capricious or FACTS:
whimsical manner. There being no hint of grave abuse of discretion
that can be attributed to the lower court, hence, it could be safely This is a petition for a writ of certiorari  to be directed to the Court of
held that the assailed orders were rendered in the proper exercise of First Instance of the Province of Cebu requiring it to forward to this
its jurisdiction. court the proceedings had in a certain election contest between the
petitioner Nemesio Campos and the respondent Teodoro Aldanse, to
-Significantly, even assuming that the orders were erroneous, the end that such proceeding may be revised by this court and
such error would merely be deemed as an error of judgment certain steps taken therein annulled on the ground that, in taking
that cannot be remedied by certiorari. As long as the them, the court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him
or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an Upon the proclamation by the municipal board of inspectors of the
error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by municipality of Sibonga, Province of Cebu, declaring the respondent
appeal. The distinction is clear: A petition for certiorari seeks to Teodoro Aldanese elected to the position of municipal president of
correct errors of jurisdiction while a petition for review seeks said municipality, the petitioner filed a protest against the election.
to correct errors of judgment committed by the court. Errors of After the filing of the protest copies were duly made for service on
judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court's the various persons receiving votes for the office of the municipal
findings. Where a court has jurisdiction over the person and president. The service of the notice of protest upon the respondent
subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the Teodoro Aldanese was made by delivering a copy thereof to one

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  6

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
Isidoro Aldanese, a brother of the respondent Teodoro Aldanese, and considers and adjudicates the question of its jurisdiction, and
who, it is claimed by the petitioner, was living in the house of the decides that the fact exist which are necessary to give it
respondent Teodoro Aldanese at the time. Isidoro Aldanese jurisdiction of the case, the finding is conclusive and cannot be
acknowledged in writing on the back of the original notice of protest controverted in a collateral proceeding.
the fact that he had received it. A copy of the certificate of service
was attached to the petition and made a part of it as Exhibit. The rule applies to a case where the proper service of notice on the
Thereafter, a motion was made to the court in which the election candidates voted for was challenged and the court determined
contest was pending for the dismissal of the proceedings on the upon the facts presented, after hearing the allegations of the parties
ground that not all of the persons receiving votes for the office of and their arguments based thereon, that service had not been made
municipal president were notified as required by law and therefore as required by law. Such a determination involves a mixed question
the court acquired no jurisdiction of the proceedings. The court, after of law and fact; and it is a rule, as stated in the case cited, that,
hearing the parties with regard to the service of the notice of protest where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the determination
on the respondent Teodoro Aldanese, held that, under the facts of a question of fact and that question has been determined by the
submitted, no service of the protest had been made on the court after a hearing, that determination is conclusive and cannot
respondent Teodoro Aldanese in the manner requires by law and be attacked collaterally. In the case before us evidence as to the fact
that, therefore, the court acquired no jurisdiction of the proceedings of service was introduced by the petitioner and the sufficiency of
and accordingly dismissed the protest. that evidence was challenged by the respondent. The petitioner did
not take advantage of the opportunity given him by the challenge to
The petitioner contends that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in present other and further evidence in relation to the service but
dismissing the proceedings and that its action should be annulled stood squarely upon the facts already presented and accepted a
and set aside and that the court should be ordered to proceed with decision of the court thereon. Under such circumstances there was
the contest. nothing left for the court to do except to decide the question upon
the facts as they were. The court did so; and although to say so is
unnecessary to a decision of this case, we are of the opinion that its
The respondent filed a demurrer to the petition on the ground,
finding on the facts as they existed of record at the time was well
among others, that it did not state facts sufficient to justify the
founded.
issuance of the writ, and the question before us arises on that
demurrer. The court acquires no jurisdiction of an election protest unless the
protestant shows to the court that a notice of protest has been
The court said: No proof whatever as to who is "I. Aldanese" has been served in the manner required by law upon all the candidates
presented. It does not appear who was the person who signed and receiving votes for the office concerning which the protest was filled
under what authority he signed, not even whether he resides in the and who were candidates for that office. The absence of such proof is
house of the respondent. The court, in the absence of proof, finds fatal to the petitioner when the motion is dismissed on that ground.
that the notice was insufficient. Furthermore, said notice was not There is no doubt that the court would receive an affidavit of service
made within the period fixed by law. or other evidence showing that the service referred to was made in
accordance with law if such evidence were offered at any time before
While the petition has annexed to it as an exhibit an affidavit of the motion was made and, probably, even after the motion was made
service of the notice of protest on the respondent Teodoro Aldanese but before the order of dismissal was entered. In this case, however,
which shows that the notice was served in the manner required by no evidence was offered establishing the fact of proper service until
law, that affidavit of service was not made or presented to the court after the order dismissing the proceedings was entered, except the
until after the order had been made dismissing the proceedings. It evidence referred to in the order of dismissal and the order denying
was first presented to the court as a part of the moving papers on the the motion for a rehearing. The evidence referred to in such orders
motion for a reconsideration of the order dismissing the was insufficient to establish the service. In the absence of provisions
proceedings. The order of dismissal was made on the 19th of July, in the Election Law stating how such service should be made the
1916, at which time the only evidence before the court as to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to that matter
service of the notice was that stated in the order of the court above- control.
quoted. The affidavit of service was made on the 20th of July on
which date the motion for reconsideration was presented. It may be added that the determination of a question of fact on which
its jurisdiction depends does not of itself affect the court's
ISSUE: jurisdiction. It has power to resolve the question of fact; and its
decision is within its powers whichever was it may go. Such a finding
Whether the court’s finding as to jurisdiction is conclusive and cannot be attacked by certiorari 
cannot be controverted in a collateral proceeding..
The demurrer is sustained and the complaint will be dismissed on
SC RULING:
the merits, unless the petitioner within ten days files an amended
Yes. complaint stating facts sufficient to warrant the issuance of the
remedy.
The general rule is that, where the jurisdiction of the court
depends upon the existence of facts, and the court judicially QUICK DIGEST:

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  7

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
FACTS: final, the lower court has plenary control over it and can
modify or set it aside as law and justice require. (Arnedo vs.
TA was proclaimed as the municipal president of Sibonga, Cebu. C Llorente and Liongson, 18 Phil., 267; De Fiesta vs. Llorente
filed a protest against TA. Notice was served to TA through his and Manila Railroad Co., 25 Phil., 554, 561.) And the fact
brother IA in the house. TA prayed for the dismissal of the petition that the decision was rendered upon a compromise, gives it
no greater validity than if it had been rendered after a trial.
since service was not properly done, thus the court did not acquire
It stands on the same footing as that of an ordinary
jurisdiction over the case. The court, after hearing the parties with judgment which may be opened or vacated on adequate
regard to the service of the notice of protest on the TA no service of grounds, such as fraud, mistake or absence of 'real consent.
the protest had been made on TA in the manner required by law (15 R. C. L., 646, 646; sec. 113, Act No. 190; Yboleon vs.
therefore, the court acquired no jurisdiction of the proceedings and Sison 59 Phil., 281.)
accordingly dismissed the protest.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTIONAL, QUESTION; MEANING OF
ISSUE: ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Whether or not the grounds
alleged by the provincial fiscal in his motion for
reconsideration seeking relief from the effects of the
Whether the court’s finding as to jurisdiction is conclusive and
compromise and from the judgment rendered thereon are
cannot be controverted in a collateral proceeding.. or are not sufficient, is not a question of jurisdiction but one
of judgment which we do not decide here. No abuse of
Yes. discretion is shown by the petitioners, and by abuse of
discretion we mean such capricious and whimsical exercise
The general rule is that, where the jurisdiction of the court of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
depends upon the existence of facts, and the court judicially
considers and adjudicates the question of its jurisdiction, and Long Digest
decides that the fact exist which are necessary to give it
jurisdiction of the case, the finding is conclusive and cannot be Facts:
controverted in a collateral proceeding.
The Province of Tarlac instituted action for the
condemnation of certain parcels of land for the construction of the
The rule applies to a case where the proper service of notice on the Capas-Murcia Diversion road against herein petitioners Abad. A
candidates voted for was challenged and the court determined compromise agreement was entered into between said province and
upon the facts presented, after hearing the allegations of the parties the petitioners for the payment to the latter of the agreed value of
and their arguments based thereon, that service had not been made their lands. The respondent judge approved the compromise in a
as required by law. Such a determination involves a mixed question partial decision rendered by himand ordered the parties to comply
of law and fact; and it is a rule, as stated in the case cited, that, with the conditions therein set forth.
where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the determination
Subsequently, the provincial fiscal, in behalf of the Province
of a question of fact and that question has been determined by the of Tarlac, moved for the reconsideration of the decision on the
court after a hearing, that determination is conclusive and cannot ground that in giving his assent to the compromise, he acted under
be attacked collaterally. In the case before us evidence as to the fact the mistaken belief that the prices fixed therein had been approved
of service was introduced by the petitioner and the sufficiency of by the appraisal committee of the provincial government, and that
that evidence was challenged by the respondent. The petitioner did the Province of Tarlac, at the time of the compromise, had no longer
not take advantage of the opportunity given him by the challenge to any authority to expropriate the lands, because by virtue of
Executive Order No. 71, the Capas-Murcia Diversion road was
present other and further evidence in relation to the service but
declared a national highway under the authority of the
stood squarely upon the facts already presented and accepted a Commonwealth of the Philippines.
decision of the court thereon. Under such circumstances there was
nothing left for the court to do except to decide the question upon The respondent judge acceded to this motion and, setting
the facts as they were. The court did so; and although to say so is aside its decision, ordered the reopening of the case and authorized
unnecessary to a decision of this case, we are of the opinion that its the substitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines for the
finding on the facts as they existed of record at the time was well Province of Tarlac as party plaintiff, in accordance with the petition
of the Solicitor-General to that effect. Hence, this petition.
founded.
The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the
The determination of a question of fact on which its jurisdiction respondent judge was without power to set aside his partial decision
depends does not of itself affect the court's jurisdiction. It has power which was founded upon a compromise duly approved by him. It is
to resolve the question of fact; and its decision is within its powers not claimed that the judgment in question has become final.
whichever was it may go. Such a finding cannot be attacked
by certiorari  Issue:
WON the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of
XI.O ABAD SANTOS V. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, 67 PHIL. 480 DY discretion when he set aside his partial decision based on the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties?
1. CERTIORARI; CONTROL OF COURT OVER JUDGMENT
Ruling:
THAT HAS NOT BECOME FINAL; JUDGMENT UPON A
NO.
COMPROMISE. — It is not claimed that the judgment in
question has become final. In fact, it cannot be so claimed
Not having become final, the lower court has plenary
because the fiscal's motion for reconsideration thereof was
control over it and can modify or set it aside as law and justice
presented five days after its rendition. Not having become

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  8

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
require. And the fact that the decision was rendered upon a ISSUE:
compromise, gives it no greater validity than if it had been rendered
after a trial. It stands on the same footing as that of an ordinary (1) Supposing that the Court of First Instance has granted an
judgment which may be opened or vacated on adequate grounds, attachment for which there is no statutory authority, can this court
such as fraud, mistake or absence of real consent. entertain the present petition and grant the desired relief?
No abuse of discretion is shown by the petitioners, and by
(2) Is the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming an
abuse of discretion we mean such capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. obligation arising from "contract, express or implied?"

Short Digest: HELD: DENIED

Facts: 1. YES, Under section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure the
Tarlac Province and the Abads entered into a compromise Supreme Court has original jurisdiction by the writ
agreement from which Judge Locsin’s partial decision was based. The of certiorari over the proceedings of Courts of First
provincial fiscal moved for a reconsideration on the ground that the Instance, wherever said courts have exceeded their
compromise was entered into under a mistaken belief, and by virtue jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate
of EO No. 71, wherein it removed the province’s authority to remedy. In the same section, it is further declared that the
expropriate the questioned property. proceedings in the Supreme Court in such cases hall be as
prescribed for Courts of First Instance in section 217-221,
The motion was granted by respondent Judge. Hence this inclusive, of said Code.
case, as the petitioners argued that the former lost his authority to
set aside his decision because it has already been promulgated.
Taking the three together, it results in our opinion that any irregular
Issue:
WON the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of exercise of juridical power by a Court of First Instance, in excess of
discretion when he set aside his partial decision based on the its lawful jurisdiction, is remediable by the writ of certiorari,
compromise agreement entered into by the parties? provided there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; and
in order to make out a case for the granting of the writ it is not
Ruling: necessary that the court should have acted in the matter without any
No. Not having become final, the lower court has plenary jurisdiction whatever. Indeed the repeated use of expression excess
control over it and can modify or set it aside as law and justice
of jurisdiction shows that the lawmaker contemplated the situation
require. Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. where a court, having jurisdiction should irregularly transcend its
authority as well as the situation where the court is totally devoid of
1. XI.P • LEUNG BEN V. O’BRIEN, 38 PHIL 182 VALENCIA lawful power.

the word jurisdiction as used in attachment cases, has reference not

Leung Ben v O’Brien only to the authority of the court to entertain the principal action but
also to its authority to issue the attachment, as dependent upon the
Principle – Excess of jurisdiction distinguished from lack of existence of the statutory ground. (6 C. J., 89.) This distinction
jurisdiction between jurisdiction to issue the attachment as an ancillary remedy
incident to the principal litigation is of importance; as a court's
Excess of jurisdiction contemplates the situation where a court, jurisdiction over the main action may be complete, and yet it may
having jurisdiction should irregularly transcend its authority as well lack authority to grant an attachment as ancillary to such action.
as the situation where the court is totally devoid of lawful power. Thus in Rocha & Co. vs. Crossfield and Figueras (6 Phil. Rep., 355), a
receiver had been appointed without legal justification. It was held
FACTS: O’Brien lost P15,000 to Leung Ben in a series of gambling, that the order making the appointment was beyond the jurisdiction
banking and percentage games. O’Brien filed a complaint with of the court; and though the court admittedly had jurisdiction of the
application for attachment to recover the money on the ground that main cause, the order was vacated by this court upon application a
the latter was about to depart from the Philippine islands with intent writ of certiorari.
to defraud his creditors.
By parity of reasoning it must follow that when a court issues a writ
The trial court granted the writ of attachment so Leung Ben moved of attachment for which there is no statutory authority, it is acting
to have the same quashed because the ground invoked in the irregularly and in excess of its jurisdiction, in the sense necessary to
application for attachment must arise from a contract but money lost justify the Supreme Court in granting relief by the writ of certiorari.
in gambling, however, is not founded on contract, express or implied.
2. YES
The motion was denied, hence the instant petition for certiorari
alleging that the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its Money lost in gaming and voluntarily paid by the loser to the winner
jurisdiction in granting the writ of attachment; that the petitioner can not in the absence of statue, be recovered in a civil action. But
has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise; Act No. 1757 of the Philippine Commission, which defines and
and that consequently the writ of certiorari supplies the appropriate penalizes several forms of gambling, contains numerous provisions
remedy for his relief. recognizing the right to recover money lost in gambling or in the
playing of certain games (secs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11). The original complaint

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  9

 WEEK 9 (from Certiorari and Appeal distinguished)
in the action in the Court of First Instance is not clear as to the ISSUE:
particular section of Act No. 1757 under which the action is brought,
but it is alleged that the money was lost at gambling, banking, and WON certiorari is proper in this case.
percentage game in which the defendant was banker. It must
therefore be assumed that the action is based upon the right of RULING:
recovery given in Section 7 of said Act, which declares that an action
may be brought against the banker by any person losing money at a NO.
banking or percentage game.
It is clear at a glance that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction
In permitting the recovery of money lost at play, Act No. 1757 has to consider a motion to dismiss the appeal and the exercise of that
introduced modifications in the application of articles 1798, 180`, jurisdiction did not result in its loss, it having been exercised in
and 1305 of the Civil Code. The first two of these articles relate to accordance with the established forms and methods of procedure
gambling contracts, while article 1305 treats of the nullity of prescribed by the practice of the country. We have held in numerous
contracts proceeding from a vicious or illicit consideration. Taking all case that a writ of certiorari will not be issued unless it clearly
appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or
these provisions together, it must be apparent that the obligation to
in excess of jurisdiction in performing the acts complained of. We
return money lost at play has a decided affinity to contractual have also held that if a court had jurisdiction of the subject matter
obligations; and we believe that it could, without violence to the and of the person, decision upon all question pertinent to the cause
doctrines of the civil law, be held that such obligations is an are decisions which its jurisdiction and however irregular or
innominate quasi-contract erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by certiorari. A
Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal
In our opinion the cause of action stated in the complaints in the taken to it from a judgment of a justice's court and, therefore,
court below is based on a contract, express or implied and is had jurisdiction to decide every question pertaining thereto.
This being the case, the consideration of the motion and the
therefore of such nature that the court had authority to issue writ of
dismissal of the appeal as a consequence thereof are not acts in
attachment. The application for the writ of certiorari must therefore excess of jurisdiction. It may be stated as a general rule that the
be denied and the proceedings dismissed. So ordered. decision by a court of one of the fundamental question before it does
not, except perhaps in cases involving a constitutional question,
deprive it of jurisdiction whichever way it may decide.

2. HERRERA (SUPRA) TRIXIE The writ of certiorari in so far as it was a method by which mere
errors of an inferior court could be corrected no longer exists.
3. XI.R. NAPA V. WEISSENHAGEN, 29 PHIL. 182 VILLAGANAS Its place is now taken by the appeal. So long as the inferior court
maintains jurisdiction, its errors can be corrected only by that
method. The writ in this country has been confined to the
PRINCIPLE: correction of defects of jurisdiction solely and cannot be legally
used for any other purpose. (Id.)
The writ of certiorari in so far as it was a method by which mere
errors of an inferior court could be corrected no longer exists. If the judgment of the justice's court was void, it was
Its place is now taken by the appeal. So long as the inferior court nevertheless appealable, although the losing party might have
maintains jurisdiction, its errors can be corrected only by that been able to rid himself of it by other means. Having been
method (APPEAL). appealed, it stands upon substantially the same footing in the
appellate court, so far as the appeal itself is concerned, as any other
FACTS: judgment of a justice's court and the jurisdiction of the appellate
court in that appeal is as full and complete as it is in any other.
An action for the summary recovery of the possession of land was
filed by Julian Larong and HermenegildoBayla against Agapito Napa.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and

ordered delivery of possession.The decision was rendered on the
14th of April, 1913, and appeal was taken therefrom on the 29th of
the same month.

The cause having arrived in the Court of First Instance for

determination on the appeal, a motion was made by the appellee to
dismiss the appeal on the ground that it had not been perfected
within the time required by law. The court entertained this motion,
granted it, and dismissed the appeal.

The purpose of this proceeding is to obtain a writ of certiorari for the

revision of the record of the court below, the revocation of the
judgment entered upon the order granting the motion to dismiss the
appeal, and to set aside the whole proceeding to the ground that the
court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal.

It’s not a PROVREM 2015  10