Rigor v. Rodriguez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns petitioners' alleged right-of-way over a portion of the private respondent's property. The core issue is whether the private respondent can construct a gate and fence her property, thereby obstructing the petitioners' access to and egress from their own property. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners initially filed a suit for injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. However, the private respondent appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated September 30, 2004, reversed the RTC's ruling. The petitioners subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated January 21, 2005. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the CA's decision and resolution. They contend that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion by allegedly focusing on the issue of whether petitioners had a right to the right-of-way, rather than the issue of the private respondent's right to close it. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petition was an improper remedy, as the CA's actions did not involve a lack or excess of jurisdiction, but rather an alleged error of judgment correctable by appeal. Furthermore, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the Regional Trial Court's decision. Whether certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy for alleged errors of judgment by the Court of Appeals, considering the availability of appeal.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 is an improper remedy in this case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It requires the petitioner to demonstrate not only such jurisdictional error but also the absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the petitioners' grievance stemmed from the CA's alleged error in reversing the RTC's decision and its appreciation of the issues and evidence, which constitute errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction. The CA's competence to act on the appeal was not questioned. Therefore, certiorari is not the proper remedy. On the issue of the propriety of certiorari and the availability of appeal: The Court emphasized that errors of judgment are correctable only by appeal, not by certiorari. Since the CA's decision and resolution were final dispositions on the merits, the proper remedy for the petitioners was a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the review of questions of law. The Court noted that even if the petition were treated as a Rule 45 petition, it would still fail because it was filed out of time. The petitioners received the CA resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on January 21, 2005, but filed the petition with the Supreme Court on March 31, 2005, which is 67 days later, exceeding the 15-day reglementary period prescribed by Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court concluded that the special civil action of certiorari was interposed as an afterthought to make up for the loss of the right of ordinary appeal through negligence or oversight.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal when the latter remedy is available. Certiorari is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion, and cannot be used to correct errors of judgment, which are reviewable only by appeal.