G.R. Nos. 167583-84, June 16, 2010
ARTISTICA CERAMICA, INC., CERALINDA, INC., CYBER CERAMICS, INC. and MILLENNIUM, INC., Petitioners, vs. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC. and BUKLURAN PUROK II RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are ceramic manufacturing corporations located in Pasig City, near the residential areas of the respondent homeowner and residents’ associations. In 1997, respondents complained to government agencies about pollution and safety hazards from petitioners’ operations, leading to the issuance of Closure and Cease-and-Desist Orders. To settle the dispute, the parties entered into two agreements: a Drainage Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and a subsequent comprehensive MOA dated November 14, 1997. The MOA required petitioners to permanently cease all manufacturing operations on or before May 7, 2000, establish an Environmental Guarantee Fund, furnish a performance bond, and fund community projects, among other undertakings. In exchange, respondents agreed to cause the dismissal of all complaints.
Petitioners failed to fully comply with their obligations. Consequently, respondents filed a complaint before the Arbitration Committee created under the MOA. The Committee ruled in favor of respondents, directing petitioners to comply with their undertakings, including the payment of a P300,000 contribution for a chapel, and imposing a fine for delayed relocation of their manufacturing facilities. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Arbitration Committee’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court emphasized the distinct nature of the remedies under Rule 45 (appeal by certiorari) and Rule 65 (certiorari). A petition under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail a court’s judgment, final order, or resolution on questions of law or fact. In contrast, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary writ directed against any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, which has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In this case, petitioners’ arguments—challenging the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the evidence supporting them—constituted an appeal on errors of judgment, not jurisdictional errors. The proper mode was therefore a petition for review under Rule 45. However, petitioners filed their petition under Rule 65 and, as admitted, even missed the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 45 petition. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Since petitioners failed to timely avail of the correct remedy of appeal, the Court of Appeals’ decision had attained finality. The petition was thus dismissed for being an improper remedy.