Thursday, December 12, 2013

Distinction between a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari and a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari:

"x x x.

Before disposing of the main issue in this case, this Court needs to
address a procedural issue raised by respondents. Collectively, respondents
argue that the Petition is actually one of certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court43 and not a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45.44 Thus, petitioner’s failure to show that there was neither appeal nor any
other plain, speedy or adequate remedy merited the dismissal of the

Contrary to respondent’s imputation, the remedy contemplated by
petitioner is clearly that of a Rule 45 Petition for Review. In Tagle v.
Equitable PCI Bank,45 this Court made the distinction between a Rule 45
Petition for Review on Certiorari and a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari:

Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. In Pure Foods Corporation v.
NLRC, we explained the simple reason for the rule in this light:
When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while
so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised
when the error is committed x x x. Consequently, an error of
judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil action of

x x x x

Even if the findings of the court 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 of an error of law or fact a mistake of judgment, appeal is the remedy.

In this case, what petitioner seeks to rectify may be construed as errors
of judgment of the Court of Appeals. These errors pertain to the petitioner’s
allegation that the appellate court failed to uphold the findings of facts of the
lower court. He does not impute any error with respect to the Court of
Appeals’ exercise of jurisdiction. As such, this Petition is simply a  continuation of the appellate process where a case is elevated from the trial court of origin, to the Court of Appeals, and to this Court via Rule 45.

Contrary to respondents’ arguments, the allegations of petitioner that
the Court of Appeals “committed grave abuse of discretion”46 did not ipso
facto render the intended remedy that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.47

In any case, even if the Petition is one for the special civil action of
certiorari, this Court has the discretion to treat a Rule 65 Petition for
Certiorari as a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari. This is allowed if
(1) the Petition is filed within the reglementary period for filing a Petition
for review; (2) when errors of judgment are averred; and (3) when there is
sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.48 When this Court
exercises this discretion, there is no need to comply with the requirements
provided for in Rule 65.

In this case, petitioner filed his Petition within the reglementary period
of filing a Petition for Review.49 His Petition assigns errors of judgment and
appreciation of facts and law on the part of the Court of Appeals. Thus, even
if the Petition was designated as one that sought the remedy of certiorari,
this Court may exercise its discretion to treat it as a Petition for Review in
the interest of substantial justice.

x x x."

See - 

G.R. No. 171428. November 11, 2013
Alejandro V. Tankeh Vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al.