G.R. No. 19784; November 11, 1922
UY CHU, petitioner, vs. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL and UY DU, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Uy Chu filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, alleging that respondent Judge Carlos A. Imperial exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing a receiver for certain tiendas in a civil case where respondent Uy Du was the plaintiff and Uy Chu was the defendant. The original petition failed to show that the alleged irregularities had been brought to the attention of the lower court through a motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court denied the petition, invoking the rule from Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin. Subsequently, without leave of court, the petitioner filed an amended petition identical to the original but with added paragraphs stating that during the hearing for the appointment of the receiver, the lower court’s attention was called to certain alleged defects in the motion, and an exception was taken to the court’s order.

ISSUE

Whether the amended petition for certiorari should be granted, considering the petitioner’s failure to first file a motion for reconsideration in the lower court to correct the alleged error or excess of jurisdiction.

RULING

No. The amended petition is ordered stricken from the record. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the wholesome rule established in Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin, which requires that before invoking the jurisdiction of a higher court via certiorari on grounds that a lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction or illegally, the party must first call the attention of the inferior court to the supposed error and ask for its correction through a motion for reconsideration. The additional allegations in the amended petition—that the court’s attention was called to defects during the hearing—do not satisfy this requirement, as the error must be specifically brought to the court’s attention via a motion for reconsideration. No special circumstances were shown to justify immediate Supreme Court action. Since the original petition was already denied and the amended petition was filed without leave and contained no new material allegations, it was ordered stricken from the record.