G.R. No. L-15134; November 29, 1961
THE CITY OF MANILA, petitioner, vs. HON. HIGINO B. MACADAEG, Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, ANTONIO AVECILLA, LUCIO R. ILDEFONSO and PABLO V. GUTIERREZ, respondents.

FACTS

The City of Manila initiated a condemnation proceeding. The respondent judge appointed the other respondents as commissioners to determine the value of the real estate. After submitting their report, which became the basis for the court’s decision, the commissioners filed a motion for reasonable compensation at P100.00 per meeting. The City Fiscal opposed, citing Rule 130, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, which fixed compensation at P4.00 per day. The respondent judge, after hearing, issued an order on June 10, 1958, fixing the compensation at P25.00 per meeting.
The City Fiscal moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the judge exceeded his jurisdiction or gravely abused his discretion by awarding compensation far exceeding the statutory rate. The respondents countered that the rule set only a minimum, allowing judicial discretion to increase it based on circumstances. They further contended the petition was improper, as the order had become final due to the City’s failure to appeal within the reglementary period.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the trial court’s order fixing commissioners’ fees at a rate above that stated in the Rules of Court, after the period for appeal had lapsed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic centers on the distinction between a jurisdictional error and an error of judgment, and the proper remedies for each. The Court held that the respondent judge undeniably had jurisdiction to fix and order payment of commissioners’ fees. The core dispute was whether he correctly interpreted Rule 130, Section 13—whether it prescribed a mandatory rate or a minimum. Even assuming the judge erred in interpreting the rule and awarding P25.00, such an error is one of judgment, not jurisdiction. An error of judgment is correctible by a timely appeal.
The petition was filed on March 2, 1959, long after the City received notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration on January 8, 1959. The period to appeal had therefore expired. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It is available only for correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Since the court acted within its jurisdiction, the alleged mistake did not constitute a jurisdictional flaw. The proper recourse was an appeal, which the City forfeited. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be used to revive a lost right to appeal or to obtain a review of a final order based on an error of law.