GR 167400; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167400; June 30, 2006
PRISCILLA T. RIGOR, ENRICO T. RIGOR, JESUS ROMEO T. RIGOR and NINO ANGELO T. RIGOR, Petitioners, vs. TENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS and MILAGROS RODRIGUEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint for injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City against private respondent Milagros Rodriguez. The suit sought to prevent Rodriguez from constructing a gate and fencing her property, which petitioners claimed was part of a right-of-way essential for their access to and egress from their own property. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision.
Aggrieved by the CA’s reversal, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65. They assail the CA’s decision, arguing that the appellate court erred by addressing the foundational issue of whether petitioners had a right to the claimed easement, instead of confining itself to the specific issue of whether Rodriguez could legally close the pathway. Petitioners contend the CA gravely abused its discretion by relying on the respondent’s defenses without the testimony of the alleged owner of the land constituting the right-of-way.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals’ decision.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright for being an improper remedy. A writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is strictly limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is only available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The Court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion by the CA. The CA’s decision was a result of a regular appeal, over which it unquestionably had jurisdiction. Petitioners’ arguments—that the CA erred in its appreciation of the issues and evidence—pertain to errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. Such errors are correctable only by a timely appeal, not by certiorari. The proper remedy from the CA’s final judgment was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, limited to questions of law, which petitioners did not avail. Consequently, the Court refused to tolerate the use of certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal and emphasized the importance of finality in judgments.