G.R. No. 45116 ; September 17, 1936
GO OCCO & CO., petitioner, vs. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, Judge of First Instance of Cebu, and ALEJANDRO S. REYES, as administrator of the estate of Laureana Antonio, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Go Occo & Co. filed a petition for certiorari against Judge Sixto de la Costa. The petitioner had originally filed a collection case in the justice of the peace court against People’s Bazar. The estate of Laureana Antonio intervened, claiming a larger amount for unpaid rent. The justice of the peace court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The intervenor appealed to the Court of First Instance but allegedly failed to pay the full docket fee and did not reproduce its complaint on appeal. The respondent judge later declared the petitioner in default on the intervenor’s claim, rendered judgment for the intervenor, and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, ordering execution of the judgment. The petitioner sought certiorari, alleging there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari sufficiently alleges that the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, to warrant the issuance of the writ.

RULING

No. The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petition was vague and indefinite. It failed to specify which orders of the lower court were being assailed and did not contain a clear averment that the court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. It merely alleged the lack of another remedy. The administration of justice cannot be based on conjecture, and courts should not be left to divine the intentions of parties from uncertain pleadings. Therefore, the petition did not meet the requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

AI Generated by Armztrong.