Wrong remedy

Certiorari is a remedy available to a party by which a decision or ruling of a lower court is reviewed by a higher court. It is separate and distinct from appeal which is the usual remedy by which decisions of lower courts are reviewed. Certiorari is available only if there is no appeal or any other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is designed to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. This is explained in this case of Jun.

Jun filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) a complaint for ejectment and damages against Vic and the spouses Tony and Tess. In his complaint he alleged: that he is the purchaser and the co-owner of a residential land occupied by Vic, Tony and Tess; that prior to his purchase he inquired from them whether they were interested in buying the property; that when the three said they were not, he gave them one week to vacate the premises to which they agreed, but that after the consummation of the sale to him, Vic, Tony and Tess refused to vacate.

Vic and the spouses Tony and Tess denied the material allegations of the complaint and alleged that the property belongs to the government forming part of the public forest; that the real owner of the property was another person from whom they acquired their rights through a document entitled “waiver”; that Jun’s title is fake and assuming it is not, it covers another property and not the premises they occupy.

After appropriate proceedings the MTC rendered a decision in Jun’s favor ordering Vic and the spouses to immediately vacate the premises; remove all structures and shanties constructed thereon and pay reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. The MTC decision was received by Vic’s lawyer on July 23, 1996 and by the spouses’ lawyer on July 18, 1996.

On August 5, 1996 another lawyer appeared for Vic and filed an Urgent Motion asking for a complete copy of the decision as the decision furnished the previous lawyer was incomplete. On August 12, 1996 however Jun already filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution considering that no notice of appeal has been filed within 15 days from receipt of decision and therefore the same has already become final and executory. On August 30, the MTC granted Jun’s motion.

After the MTC denied Vic’s motion to quash the writ of execution the Sheriff implemented the decision by turning over the possession of the property to Jun.

On November 13, 1996, Vic filed with the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus assailing both the MTC decision for being contrary to the evidence on record and the writ of execution for being premature as the decision was not yet final.

On August 4, 1997, the RTC rendered a decision in Vic’s favor. Portion of said decision annulled the MTC decision for being contrary to the evidence; and determined the rights of the parties under Article 448 of the Civil Code as to builder’s in good or bad faith. Was this decision of the RTC correct?

No. The RTC has no jurisdiction to review, reverse or modify, in any manner whatsoever, the MTC decision on the merits of the ejectment case via a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65. If Vic wanted a review of the MTC decision he should have instead filed an appeal. The supervisory jurisdiction of the RTC through certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of the judgment of the MTC. Even if the findings of the MTC are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but an error of law or fact — a mistake of judgment — appeal is the proper remedy.

Thus all the RTC actions anchored on its decision on the merits of the MTC decision, particularly its determination of the rights of the parties under Article 448 of the Civil Code are void for want of legal basis (Vios et. al. vs. Pantangco, Jr. G.R. 163103, February 6, 2009). They are void because they were obtained with a wrong remedy.

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]