G.R. No. L-17995, June 27, 1963
Rodolfo Giron, Miguel Balance, and Maxima Vda. de Antisoda, petitioners, vs. Hon. Hermogenes Caluag, Hon. Nicasio Yatco, and J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc., represented by Gregorio Araneta, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were defendants in separate ejectment cases filed by respondent J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. They alleged that after filing their answers, respondent Judges Caluag and Yatco improperly delegated the reception of evidence to court commissioners without a proper order of reference or oath, and subsequently rendered decisions based on this evidence without a commissioner’s report, notice, or hearing. They sought certiorari to annul these proceedings, the resulting decisions, and the issued writs of execution, also requesting a preliminary injunction to halt pending demolition orders.
For petitioners Antisoda and Balance, the records show their appeals were dismissed due to the late filing of amended records on appeal, which they did not seek to reconsider. They later filed separate certiorari petitions in the Court of Appeals, which were dismissed. For petitioner Giron, the hearing proceeded by agreement of the parties for the clerk of court to receive evidence. He did not appeal the adverse decision, allowing it to become final and executory before challenging the proceedings in this certiorari action.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of certiorari is proper to annul the trial court proceedings and decisions based on alleged irregularities in the referral to commissioners and the subsequent rendition of judgments.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. For Antisoda and Balance, the doctrine of res judicata applies. Their separate petitions for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which raised identical grounds regarding the commissioner’s lack of oath and the alleged procedural violations, were already dismissed on their merits. That dismissal constitutes a final adjudication barring relitigation of the same issues in this subsequent certiorari proceeding.
For petitioner Giron, certiorari is not an available remedy. The court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties is undisputed, rendering its decision valid on its face. Any alleged irregularities in the referral process were procedural errors that could have been challenged through timely motions for reconsideration and, crucially, an ordinary appeal. By failing to appeal and allowing the decision to become final and executory, Giron forfeited his right to challenge these errors. Certiorari cannot serve as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially absent a showing of a complete lack of jurisdiction or a denial of due process. The Court found no such denial, noting Giron was not prevented from presenting evidence and does not claim his evidence was misconstrued. His predicament resulted from his own deliberate inaction.