GR L 20366; (May, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966
LEONORA S. PALMA and SERVILLANO IGNACIO, petitioners and appellants, vs. Q. & S. INC., and JOSE F. ORETA, respondents and appellees.
FACTS
Respondent Q. & S. Inc., a domestic corporation, filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioners Leonora S. Palma and Servillano Ignacio with the Municipal Court of Caloocan City (Civil Case No. 4491). The complaint alleged that Q. & S. Inc. owned a building leased to the petitioners, who failed to pay rentals from September 30, 1961, despite demands. Petitioner Ignacio filed a motion to dismiss, claiming he was merely a plant mechanic and branch manager of the New Asia Ice Cream Factory and had never entered into a lease contract with the plaintiff. Petitioner Palma, in her answer, claimed the premises had been rented for their business from a previous owner, Chua Tee, and that she withheld subsequent rentals due to uncertainty about the identity of the new owner after being informed of a sale. The Municipal Court denied Ignacio’s motion to dismiss and his motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 6974) against Q. & S., Inc. and Judge Jose F. Oreta, seeking to annul the proceedings in the ejectment case for alleged lack of jurisdiction and to enjoin the judge from proceeding with the hearing. The Court of First Instance dismissed their petition, prompting the present appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Court of Caloocan City committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner Ignacio’s motion to dismiss the ejectment complaint, thereby warranting the issuance of writs of certiorari and prohibition.
RULING
No. The order of dismissal by the Court of First Instance is affirmed. The Municipal Court of Caloocan City had jurisdiction over the ejectment case. The denial of the motion to dismiss was an exercise of that jurisdiction. The Supreme Court distinguished between “jurisdiction” and the “exercise of jurisdiction.” Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause, and its existence does not depend on the regularity or correctness of the court’s exercise. Any error committed in the exercise of jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment, reviewable only by appeal, not by certiorari. For a writ of certiorari to issue, there must be a showing of “grave abuse of discretion,” defined as a capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The petition failed to demonstrate that the Municipal Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion was present to justify the extraordinary writs.