GR 111854; (November, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111854 November 24, 1999
BARANGAY BLUE RIDGE “A” OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
FACTS
Petitioners, Barangay Blue Ridge “A” and its residents, filed a complaint for injunction with damages against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. They alleged that Shell’s construction of a gasoline station violated local barangay ordinances and resolutions. Shell moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The RTC granted the motion, finding that while petitioners had a legal right under the zoning ordinance, Shell’s project fell under a valid exception provided by the same ordinance. The court thus ruled no cause of action was established and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the RTC orders and alleging grave abuse of discretion and bias by the trial judge. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that certiorari was improper because the ordinary remedy of appeal under Rule 41 was available and had been lost. It described the petition as a “patay na kabayo” (dead horse). The CA also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, prompting this appeal via certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for certiorari and ruling that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. A fundamental requirement for certiorari is the absence of a “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,” such as an appeal. Here, the RTC’s order was a final order dismissing the complaint, against which a timely ordinary appeal was the correct remedy. Certiorari is a limited, extraordinary remedy designed to correct jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not meant to correct mere errors of judgment.
The Court found that the RTC’s evaluation of the complaint’s elements and its conclusion that no cause of action existed involved an exercise of jurisdiction, not a gross evasion of a positive duty. Any potential error in the RTC’s legal interpretation or factual assessment constituted an error of judgment, reviewable by appeal, not an error of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of power, which was not present. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari, as petitioners pursued the wrong remedy after losing their right to a regular appeal.