ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142920. June 14, 2000]

DOROTEO SALZAR, et al. vs. CA et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 142920 (Doroteo Salazar, et al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Seventh Division, et al.)

Petitioners filed this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul and set aside the resolution of respondent Court of Appeals which denied their petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as their motion for reconsideration. Subject of the petition before the Court of Appeals was the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 9, dismissing their petition for relief of judgment.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on technical grounds, i.e., the failure of petitioners to specify the material dates showing that the petition was filed on time; lack of verification by an authorized representative of petitioner corporation; failure to attach a certified true copy of the RTC Order; lack of material portions of the record; and the copy of the petition for relief is not readable. It can readily be seen that the errors of the Court of Appeals, if any, are mere errors of judgment or procedure. Well settled is the rule that special civil action for certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court (People v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 687 [1999]). The main issue is one of jurisdiction --- lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction (Recabo v. Commission on Elections, 308 SCRA 793 [1999]).

What petitioners should have done was to file a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure within fifteen days from receipt of the questioned resolution, instead of waiting for sixty days before filing the instant petition. Certiorari is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. An essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary remedies under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure is an absence of an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Conti v. Court of Appeals, 307 SCRA 486 [1999]).

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE