GR 136422; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136422 ; July 7, 2004
Bayani Alon and Severina Redilla-Villamil, et al., petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Juanito Agravio, et al., respondents.
FACTS
The dispute involves adjacent lots in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Petitioners Bayani Alon and the Spouses Villamil own Lot 828-A. Respondent Juanito Agravio purchased the adjoining Lot 2162-B, built a house, and later sold it to Eduardo Laserna. Petitioners claimed Agravio’s house encroached on their property. Agravio filed a complaint for relocation and damages, alleging petitioners’ houses were on his lot.
The parties agreed to a binding relocation survey by a government surveyor, Engr. Valencia. His report, submitted in September 1991, indicated the boundaries. Petitioners’ counsel cross-examined Valencia in May 1993 but later sought to present additional evidence to controvert the report. On October 11, 1995, petitioners’ counsel failed to appear for further cross-examination, leading the trial court to declare a waiver of that right.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari, which assailed the trial court’s summary judgment, on the ground that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal that had been lost due to negligence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The core legal logic is that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The trial court’s summary judgment was based on the binding relocation survey report agreed upon by the parties. Any perceived error in the trial court’s evaluation of evidence or its procedural order declaring a waiver of cross-examination constituted an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction.
Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal. The record showed petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal, but they failed to perfect the appeal within the reglementary period. The petitioners’ negligence in allowing the decision to become final and executory precluded appellate review. Since the ordinary remedy of appeal was available but lost, certiorari was not permissible. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the trial court in rendering its summary judgment. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari.