G.R. No. 157707 October 29, 2008
MARCIAL FAJARDO, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RUBY GAMBOA VDA. DE DIZON, ET AL., MYRNA ILAGAN VDA. DE MANGUNE, ET AL., CAPT. GENER MANGUNE, and OLIVIA PAYAD VDA. DE GUTIERREZ, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 31, 2003. The case stemmed from four consolidated civil cases for damages filed by the heirs of Alexander T. Dizon, Eduardo and Elizabeth P. Mangune, and Mario C. Gutierrez (the four victims), who died in a vehicular accident along the North Expressway in Angeles City. The cases were filed against Perfecto Dacasin (the driver) and petitioner Marcial Fajardo (the owner) of a six-wheeler truck that allegedly sideswiped the victims’ jeep. A criminal case for reckless imprudence was also filed against Dacasin and consolidated with the civil cases. The trial court found Dacasin guilty in the criminal case and held both Dacasin and Fajardo liable for damages in the civil cases, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Police investigator SPO2 Romulo M. Bagsic testified that upon arriving at the accident scene, he saw the four victims on the road, the victims’ jeep in a canal, and a six-wheeler truck on its side, with a portion of the jeep attached to the truck. Based on the vehicles’ positions, debris, and skid marks, he concluded the jeep was sideswiped by the truck. A gasoline receipt found in the truck’s compartment led Bagsic to identify its owner as “M. Fajardo,” which petitioner later acknowledged. The truck was later missing from the scene. In defense, petitioner and Dacasin denied their truck was involved in the fatal accident, claiming their truck had a separate accident earlier that afternoon after running over a hole. Dacasin admitted to hiding for four years and being arrested in 1991.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the trial court’s decision holding petitioner liable for damages?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition warranted outright dismissal on procedural grounds. First, the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals before resorting to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which is an indispensable condition to afford the lower court an opportunity to correct any error. Petitioner did not explain this omission or show that any recognized exception applied. Second, petitioner adopted the wrong remedy. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action available only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion, defined as arbitrary, despotic, whimsical, or capricious exercise of power. The proper remedy from a Court of Appeals decision is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process. The alleged errors in the Court of Appeals’ decision—such as its findings of fact based on the police investigator’s testimony and the award of damages—involved questions of judgment, not jurisdiction. An error of judgment is not correctible by certiorari.