Manila v. Macadaeg
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The City of Manila initiated a condemnation proceeding and appointed respondents Antonio Avecilla, Lucio R. Ildefonso, and Pablo V. Gutierrez as commissioners to assess the value of real estate. After fulfilling their duties and submitting their report, the commissioners sought compensation at a rate of P100.00 per meeting. 2. Procedural History: The City Fiscal opposed the commissioners' request, citing the Rules of Court which stipulate a compensation of P4.00 per day. Following a hearing, the respondent judge, on June 10, 1958, set the commissioners' compensation at P25.00 per meeting. The City Fiscal's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the City of Manila subsequently filed a petition for certiorari. 3. The Petition: The City of Manila filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion by awarding compensation significantly higher than the P4.00 per day limit prescribed by Rule 130, section 13 of the Rules of Court. The respondents countered that the Rules provided a minimum, leaving discretion to the judge, and that the City had lost its right to appeal the order by failing to do so within the prescribed period.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction in fixing the commissioners' compensation at P25.00 per meeting, despite the provision in the Rules of Court fixing such compensation at P4.00 per day. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when the time to appeal has already lapsed.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that the petition was filed out of time, as it was instituted more than thirty days after the City Fiscal received the resolution denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a remedy for errors of law or fact that should be corrected by appeal, and that the respondent judge, while possibly erring, did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time. The petition was filed on March 2, 1959, more than thirty days after the City Fiscal received the resolution denying his motion to reconsider the order fixing the commissioners' compensation. This meant that the City had lost its right to appeal the original order. While the respondent judge may have erred in fixing the compensation at P25.00 per meeting, this was considered an error of judgment, not an act without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court has repeatedly held that certiorari will not be entertained to correct errors of law or fact that should be corrected by appeal. Therefore, the remedy of certiorari was not appropriate in this instance. On Issue 2: The Court clarified that while it has, in some instances, entertained petitions to revoke orders after the time to appeal had elapsed, these were cases where the jurisdiction of the court had been exceeded. In the present case, the respondent judge had the power to fix and order the payment of commissioners' fees. Even if the judge disregarded the limit fixed by the Rules, it was merely an error that should have been corrected by appeal in due time. The petition for certiorari, filed after the period for appeal had expired, was an attempt to revise the original order, which is impermissible under the established jurisprudence on certiorari. Thus, the petition was denied on procedural grounds.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that lies only when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy for correcting errors of law or fact that should be raised through an ordinary appeal, especially when the period for appeal has already lapsed.