G.R. No. L-24100 September 30, 1975
CECILIO PANALIGAN, MARCIAL FULINARA, JUAN RAMOS and CRISANTO BATTAD, petitioners-appellants, vs. JUDGE NICOLAS C. ADOLFO, FAUSTINO L. CAPATI, and ROSARIO M. CAPATI, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Respondents Faustino and Rosario Capati filed a complaint for forcible entry with a petition for a preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioners before the Justice of the Peace Court of Subic. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint failed to sufficiently allege the Capatis’ prior physical possession, a jurisdictional fact in forcible entry cases. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the Capatis to amend their complaint to particularly describe the land. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. The court then set a hearing for the preliminary injunction. Petitioners, in a manifestation, expressly waived their right to be heard in opposition to the injunction petition and did not attend the scheduled hearing. After the Capatis presented ex parte evidence, the court granted the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, thereby justifying the grant of a writ of certiorari.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the certiorari petition. The core legal principle is the distinction between jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. A court’s error in the exercise of its jurisdiction, such as an incorrect appreciation of facts or law, does not strip it of jurisdiction; such errors are mere errors of judgment correctible by appeal, not by certiorari. For certiorari to lie, the abuse of discretion must be so grave, patent, and arbitrary as to constitute a virtual refusal to perform a duty or an evasion of a positive duty. The respondent justice of the peace court had clear jurisdiction over the subject matter (forcible entry) and the parties. Its actions—denying the motion to dismiss, requiring an amended complaint, and proceeding with the injunction hearing—were within its jurisdictional authority. The claim of denial of due process was unfounded, as the record showed petitioners voluntarily waived their right to oppose the injunction hearing. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion was committed. The proper remedy for any perceived error in the issuance of the injunction was a timely appeal, not a special civil action for certiorari.