G.R. No. L-58520. January 30, 1982.
Pedro Hermogenes, petitioner, vs. Hon. Augusto M. Amores, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Amor Ramos and Cielo Publico, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro Hermogenes filed unlawful detainer cases against respondents Amor Ramos and Cielo Publico in the City Court of Manila. The city judge granted Hermogenes’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI) to annul that order and to restrain the city court from proceeding. The CFI, per respondent Judge Amores, required respondents to post injunction bonds to effect the writ of preliminary injunction. Respondents failed to post the bonds, so no injunction was issued.
Subsequently, the City Court proceeded to render a decision on the merits, ordering respondents’ ejectment. Respondents did not appeal this judgment, allowing it to become final and executory. A writ of execution was subsequently issued. Meanwhile, in the CFI certiorari case, Judge Amores initially granted Hermogenes’ motion to dismiss, ruling the petition had become moot and academic since the act sought to be enjoined—the rendition of judgment—had already been consummated.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acted with grave abuse of discretion in reviving and proceeding with the certiorari case after the city court’s judgment in the main detainer cases had become final and executory.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the CFI orders that revived the certiorari case. The legal logic is clear: the certiorari petition was rendered moot by the supervening event of the city court’s final judgment. The certiorari action sought to annul an interlocutory order (for judgment on the pleadings) and to restrain the rendition of a decision. Since the city court had already decided the case and the judgment became final due to respondents’ inaction, the reliefs sought in certiorari could no longer be granted. The status quo ante could not be restored.
Furthermore, the proper remedy for any error in the city court’s order for judgment on the pleadings was a timely appeal from the final ejectment judgment itself. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Assuming the city judge erred, it was an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction, and thus not correctible by certiorari. The CFI, by reviving the moot petition, effectively interfered with a final and executory judgment of another court, acting without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court made permanent the injunction against the CFI proceeding, except to dismiss the certiorari case.