When a court commits grave abuse of discretion in its ruling, the proper remedy is to file a petition for a writ of certiorari because such abuse is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of said court. But if the court commits an error of judgment in the appreciation of the fact and the law, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari but an ordinary appeal. This case of Mr. Chow illustrates this rule and explains what grave abuse of discretion means.
On August 6, 2002, Chow filed a Petition for Naturalization before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). To prove the allegations of his petition he presented documentary and testimonial evidence that he studied at UST, a reputable Catholic school in the Secondary and Collegiate level. He also presented clearances issued by the courts and the NBI. Then he also showed that while he was still studying he had an annual income of P60,000 and upon graduation he already earned P720,000 a year as manager of a food mart. He also presented a medical certificate showing that he was essentially normal after a thorough medical check-up.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which opposed Chow’s petition merely cross examined Chow and his witnesses, but did not present any evidence to substantiate its opposition.
On September 4, 2003 the RTC issued a decision denying Chow’s petition for naturalization. But when Chow filed a motion for reconsideration pointing out that his testimonial and documentary evidence indisputably and overwhelmingly satisfied the requirements for naturalization particularly his good conduct, his income and his health, the RTC granted Chow’s motion and reconsidered its decision. So Chow was admitted as a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines on November 25, 2003, with his certificate of naturalization to be issued after two years.
This time it was the OSG which filed the Motion for Reconsideration of the November 25, 2003 order. But on February 24, 2004, the RTC denied said motion. It declared that Chow was able to successfully overcome all the grounds in the OSG’s motion for reconsideration.
The OSG thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court claiming that in reversing its original decision, the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Was the OSG correct?
No. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be 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 or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
Viewed against these standards, the RTC’s decision after the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration by Chow is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. No whimsicality or patent abuse has been committed by said court. If indeed there was error in considering material evidence that would warrant the denial of the petition for naturalization, such error is simply an error of judgment. Consequently, the OSG’s remedy is appeal, not certiorari (Republic vs. Hao, G.R. 165332, October 2, 2009).
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: jcson@pldtdsl.net