LEGAL NOTE 0143: THE CONCEPT OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
SOURCE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, versus – HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION & THIRD DIVISION, HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ, ROSARIO PEREZ, RAMON ARCEO and ERNEST ESCALER, Respondents; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, – versus – HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, SECOND DIVISION, HERNANDO BENITO PEREZ, ROSARIO SALVADOR PEREZ, ERNEST DE LEON ESCALER and RAMON CASTILLO ARCEO (G.R. No. 188165; G.R. No. 189063, 13 DECEMBER 2013, BERSAMIN, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND HERNANDO PEREZ ET AL.)
WHAT IS A CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI?
IT IS AN INDEPENDENT ACTION BASED ON SPECIFIC GROUNDS IN SECTION 1, RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
WHEN CAN SUCH ACTION PROSPER?
ONLY WHEN THE JURISDICTIONAL ERROR, OR THE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION COMMITTED BY THE INFERIOR COURT OR JUDGE IS ALLEGED AND PROVED TO EXIST
A special civil action for certiorari is an independent action based on the specific grounds provided in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and can prosper only the jurisdictional error, or the grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the inferior court or judge is alleged and proved to exist.
WHAT IS THE NATURE AND REACH OF THE REMEDY OF CERTIORARI?
THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI – IS A REMEDY NARROW IN SCOPE AND INFLEXIBLE IN CHARACTER, WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO KEEP AN INFERIOR COURT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR TO PREVENT AN INFERIOR COURT FROM COMMITTING SUCH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, OR TO RELIEVE PARTIES FROM ARBITRARY ACTS OF COURTS (I.E., ACTS THAT COURTS HAVE NO POWER OR AUTHORITY IN LAW TO PERFORM).
IT IS NOT A GENERAL UTILITY TOOL IN THE LEGAL WORKSHOP, AND CANNOT BE ISSUED TO CORRECT EVERY ERROR COMMITTED BY A LOWER COURT.
In De las Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, the Court has expounded on the nature and reach of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, to wit:
We remind that the writ of certiorari – being a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character, whose purpose is to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction, or to prevent an inferior court from committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts (i.e., acts that courts have no power or authority in law to perform) – is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop, and cannot be issued to correct every error committed by a lower court.
WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF THE REMEDY OF CERTIORARI?
IT IS ROOTED IN COMMON LAW. THE WRIT WAS ISSUED OUT OF THE CHANCERY OR THE KING’S BENCH, COMMANDING AGENTS OR OFFICERS OF THE INFERIOR COURTS TO RETURN THE RECORD OF A CAUSE PENDING BEFORE THEM, SO AS TO GIVE THE PARTY MORE SURE AND SPEEDY JUSTICE, FOR THE WRIT WOULD ENABLE THE SUPERIOR COURT TO DETERMINE FROM AN INSPECTION OF THE RECORD WHETHER THE INFERIOR COURT’S JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
In the common law, from which the remedy of certiorari evolved, the writ certiorari was issued out of Chancery, or the King’s Bench, commanding agents or officers of the inferior courts to return the record of a cause pending before them, so as to give the party more sure and speedy justice, for the writ would enable the superior court to determine from an inspection of the record whether the inferior court’s judgment was rendered without authority. The errors were of such a nature that, if allowed to stand, they would result in a substantial injury to the petitioner to whom no other remedy was available. If the inferior court acted without authority, the record was then revised and corrected in matters of law. The writ of certiorari was limited to cases in which the inferior court was said to be exceeding its jurisdiction or was not proceeding according to essential requirements of law and would lie only to review judicial or quasi-judicial acts.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CERTIORARI UNDER COMMON LAW AND CERTIORARI UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW?
IN THIS JURISDICTION, CERTIORARI IS REGULATED BY SECTION 1, RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT WHICH PROVIDES:
SECTION 1. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. – WHEN ANY TRIBUNAL, BOARD OR OFFICER EXERCISING JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS OR HIS JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, AND THERE IS NO APPEAL, OR ANY PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW, A PERSON AGGRIEVED THEREBY MAY FILE A VERIFIED PETITION IN THE PROPER COURT, ALLEGING THE FACTS WITH CERTAINTY AND PRAYING THAT JUDGMENT BE RENDERED ANNULLING OR MODIFYING THE PROCEEDINGS OF SUCH TRIBUNAL, BOARD OR OFFICER, AND GRANTING SUCH INCIDENTAL RELIEFS AS LAW AND JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.
THE PETITION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, ORDER OR RESOLUTION SUBJECT THEREOF, COPIES OF ALL PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS RELEVANT AND PERTINENT THERETO, AND A SWORN CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING AS PROVIDED IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 3, RULE 46. (1 A)
The concept of the remedy of certiorari in our judicial system remains much the same as it has been in the common law. In this jurisdiction, however, the exercise of the power to issue the writ of certiorari is largely regulated by laying down the instances or situations in the Rules of Court in which a superior court may issue the writ of certiorari to an inferior court or officer. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court compellingly provides the requirements for that purpose, viz:
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (1 a)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, RULE 46, WHAT ARE THE TWO REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI?
FIRST, THE PETITIONER MUST SHOW THAT, THE TRIBUNAL, BOARD OR OFFICER EXERCISING JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.
SECOND THE PETITIONER MUST SHOW THAT THERE IS NEITHER AN APPEAL NOR ANY PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING OR NULLIFYING THE PROCEEDING.
Pursuant to Section 1, supra, the petitioner must show that, one, the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and, two, there is neither an appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of amending or nullifying the proceeding.
Considering that the requisites must concurrently be attendant, the herein petitioners’ stance that a writ of certiorari should have been issued even if the CA found no showing of grave abuse of discretion is absurd. The commission of grave abuse of discretion was a fundamental requisite for the writ of certiorari to issue against the RTC. Without their strong showing either of the RTC’s lack or excess of jurisdiction, or of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the writ of certiorari would not issue for being bereft of legal and factual bases. We need to emphasize, too, that with certiorari being an extraordinary remedy, they must strictly observe the rules laid down by law for granting the relief sought.
WHAT IS THE SOLE OFFICE OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI?
IT IS THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF JURISDICTION WHICH INCLUDES THE COMMISSION OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
IS MERE ABUSE OF DISCRETION SUFFICIENT?
IT IS NOT ENOUGH. IT MUST BE GRAVE.
WHAT IS MEANT BY GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION?
IT MEANS EITHER THAT THE JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER WAS EXERCISED IN AN ARBITRARY OR DESPOTIC MANNER BY REASON OF PASSION OR PERSONAL HOSTILITY, OR THAT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE, TRIBUNAL OR BOARD EVADED A POSITIVE DUTY, OR VIRTUALLY REFUSED TO PERFORM THE DUTY ENJOINED OR TO ACT IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, SUCH AS WHEN SUCH JUDGE, TRIBUNAL OR BOARD EXERCISING JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS ACTED IN A CAPRICIOUS OR WHIMSICAL MANNER AS TO BE EQUIVALENT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.
The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which includes the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In this regard, mere abuse of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ. The abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. (citations omitted)
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 