GR 165332; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165332 ; October 2, 2009
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Yang Chi Hao, Respondent.
FACTS
Yang Chi Hao filed a Petition for Naturalization before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The RTC initially denied the petition but later granted Yang’s Motion for Reconsideration, setting aside its original decision and admitting him as a citizen subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530 . The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Instead of filing an ordinary appeal from this final order, the OSG filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition outright, ruling that certiorari was the wrong remedy as the proper recourse from a final order was an ordinary appeal, which the OSG failed to take.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the OSG’s Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy to challenge the RTC’s final order in a naturalization case.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reiterating the settled doctrine that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy strictly limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The RTC’s order granting the motion for reconsideration and admitting Yang to naturalization was a final order that disposed of the case. From such a final order, the aggrieved party’s plain, speedy, and adequate remedy was an ordinary appeal. The OSG’s failure to file a timely appeal rendered the RTC’s order final and executory. The OSG’s arguments—including that the Rules apply only suppletorily, that a naturalization judgment becomes final only after two years, or that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to an NBI report—pertain to errors of judgment, not jurisdiction, and are thus not reviewable via certiorari. These alleged errors should have been raised on appeal. Certiorari will not lie where an appeal is available but was lost through the petitioner’s own neglect.