GR 121527; (March, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121527 March 29, 1996
MARCELO L. ONGSITCO, deceased, represented by his Heirs, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., and UNITED PLAZA REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Marcelo L. Ongsitco was the lessee of a property in Tondo, Manila. The land, originally owned by Catalino Luciano, was foreclosed by China Banking Corporation and later purchased by United Plaza Realty Corporation (United). No written lease was executed between Ongsitco and United. For failure to pay rentals, United filed an ejectment suit. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of United, ordering Ongsitco to vacate and pay arrears. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court affirmed with modification, reducing the monthly rental. Ongsitco did not file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within the 15-day reglementary period. Instead, he subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus. During the pendency of this petition, Ongsitco died, and his heirs sought substitution.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that it cannot substitute for a lost appeal?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The core ruling is the strict application of the procedural doctrine that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The proper remedy from the RTC decision in an ejectment case, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, is a petition for review under Rule 42. By filing the wrong remedy and doing so beyond the reglementary period, the RTC decision became final and executory. Certiorari is an extraordinary writ limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The alleged gross negligence of counsel and the substantive claims regarding the inheritability of leasehold rights and reimbursement for improvements are irrelevant, as they are errors correctible by appeal, not by certiorari. The Court emphasized that finality of judgments is a fundamental principle, and certiorari cannot be used to revive a lost appeal. The other issues raised were deemed academic due to the finality of the RTC judgment.