G.R. No. L-10793; March 7, 1916

FACTS:
The Government of the Philippine Islands filed an action in the justice’s court of Balasan, Iloilo, against Valeriano Bantillo to collect forest taxes amounting to P42.50. The justice’s court dismissed the complaint on the merits. The Government appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo. However, the Government filed its appeal bond only on January 29, 1915, which was beyond the 15-day period prescribed by law for appeals from justices’ courts. Bantillo moved to dismiss the appeal based on this failure to timely file the bond. The CFI granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. The Government then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that as the Government, it is not required to post an appeal bond, and that the CFI acted in excess of its jurisdiction by dismissing the appeal on that ground.

ISSUE:
Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the order of the Court of First Instance dismissing the Government’s appeal for failure to timely file an appeal bond.

RULING:
No, certiorari is not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court denied the petition.
While the Court agreed with the petitioner’s substantive claim that the Government is not required to post an appeal bond, it held that the remedy of certiorari is available only to correct defects of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The CFI of Iloilo had jurisdiction over the subject matter (the appealed case) and over the parties. Therefore, its order dismissing the appeal, even if based on an erroneous conclusion of law (i.e., that the Government needed to file a bond), was an act within its jurisdiction. An error in the exercise of jurisdiction is correctible by appeal, not by certiorari. Since the Government had the plain, adequate, and speedy remedy of appealing the CFI’s dismissal order, it could not resort to the extraordinary writ of certiorari. The demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the petitioner was given time to amend its petition.