The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated a fundamental principle in Philippine law: a petition for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. This means that if a party misses the deadline to appeal a lower court’s decision, they cannot then file a certiorari petition to try to get the appellate court to review the case. Certiorari is only appropriate when there is a grave abuse of discretion by the lower court, acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction, and when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. This ruling ensures that procedural rules are followed and that parties do not circumvent the appellate process.

Encroachment and Error: When Does a Mistake Become a Grave Abuse of Discretion?

Spouses Apolinar and Genoveva Antazo filed an accion reinvindicatoria suit against Ceferina Lopez Tan, alleging that she had encroached on their registered properties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Spouses Antazo, ordering Tan to vacate the encroached portion and to pay attorney’s fees. Tan filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Instead of filing a timely appeal, Tan filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC had committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari was the wrong remedy. The Supreme Court then took up the case to determine the propriety of Tan’s use of certiorari.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Tan’s petition for certiorari. The Court began by reiterating the nature and scope of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that certiorari is a remedy limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As the Court stated, its “principal office is to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” This remedy is available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Building on this principle, the Court examined whether the RTC had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court defined “grave abuse of discretion” as “a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.” The Court scrutinized the specific instances of alleged grave abuse of discretion raised by Tan. These included arguments that the RTC failed to appreciate her defenses, that the evidence was insufficient to prove encroachment, and that the RTC erred in awarding attorney’s fees.

The Supreme Court found that the alleged errors cited by Tan were, at best, errors of judgment, not of jurisdiction. The Court noted that Tan was essentially questioning the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and application of the law, which are matters properly addressed through an appeal, not a certiorari proceeding. As the Court explained,

A petition for the writ of certiorari does not deal with errors of judgment. Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties’ respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative weight.

The Court held that the remedy of appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court was available to Tan, but she failed to avail herself of it within the prescribed period. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Allowing such a substitution would undermine the orderly administration of justice and disregard established procedural rules. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rules of procedure in this case. The Court stated that “certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.”

The Court underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules, stating that they are “designed to secure the just and efficient administration of justice.” While the Court recognized the principle that procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice, it emphasized that this is only warranted when there are exceptional circumstances and when the party seeking such relaxation can demonstrate a clear justification for their failure to comply with the rules. In this case, Tan failed to provide any such justification. The Court found no basis to disturb the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing Tan’s petition for certiorari.

FAQs

What was the central legal issue in this case?	The main issue was whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to question a trial court’s decision when the remedy of appeal is available but not pursued.
What is a writ of certiorari?	A writ of certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a lower court’s decision, typically used when the lower court is alleged to have acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
What constitutes grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
When can certiorari be used instead of an appeal?	Certiorari is appropriate only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law, such as an appeal. It cannot substitute a lost appeal.
What is the significance of following procedural rules?	Following procedural rules ensures the orderly administration of justice. While rules may be relaxed in certain circumstances, there must be a valid justification for non-compliance.
What was the outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Court of Appeals’ decision that certiorari was not the proper remedy and affirming the trial court’s judgment.
What does it mean to encroach on someone’s property?	Encroachment refers to the act of extending one’s property or structure onto another person’s land without permission, thus violating the property owner’s rights.
What is an accion reinvindicatoria?	An accion reinvindicatoria is a legal action filed by a plaintiff to recover possession of a property that they own but is being unlawfully held by another.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of adhering to established procedural rules and highlights the limitations of certiorari as a remedy. The ruling underscores that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and serves to ensure the orderly administration of justice by preventing parties from circumventing the appellate process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CEFERINA LOPEZ TAN VS. SPOUSES APOLINAR P. ANTAZO AND GENOVEVA O. ANTAZO, G.R. No. 187208, February 23, 2011