G.R. No. 109012 July 8, 1994
AIDA TUAZON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and THE SPOUSES AURELIO and FRANCISCA MENDIGORIA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aida Tuazon was the defendant in an ejectment case decided against her by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Manila, affirmed the MeTC decision in toto. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision was denied. On January 25, 1993, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 30005). On January 29, 1993, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioner assailed the decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the proper mode of appeal should have been a petition for review under Circular No. 2-90, not a petition for certiorari. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with a motion to amend the title of the petition from “Petition” to “Petition for Review,” which the Court of Appeals denied on February 23, 1993. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by petitioner with the Court of Appeals can be treated as a petition for review under Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules, and Circular No. 2-90.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the Court of Appeals to decide the appealed case on its merits. The Court held that the petition filed with the Court of Appeals, despite being labeled a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, satisfied all the substantive requirements of a petition for review. The petition contained a statement of the nature of the action, a summary of the proceedings, allegations of pertinent facts, the grounds relied upon with assignment of errors, arguments with citation of authorities, the reliefs sought, and a statement of material dates showing it was filed on time. It was accompanied by a certified true copy of the RTC decision. The Court ruled that the lone statement in the petition referencing Rule 65 and lack of appeal under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure could be treated as surplusage and did not detract from considering the petition as one for review under the governing statutes and circular. The form and substance of the petition complied with the requirements for a petition for review as prescribed by Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules, Circular No. 2-90, and the relevant rules of court.