GR L 58187; (September, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982
Remedios Velasco Vda. De Caldito, petitioner, vs. Hon. Rosalio C. Segundo, etc., et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Remedios Velasco Vda. De Caldito filed a complaint for damages on April 10, 1980, arising from the death of her husband in a vehicular accident on December 19, 1972. Her husband was a passenger in a motorized tricycle owned by private respondent when it was bumped by a truck. The private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription, arguing the action, based on quasi-delict, prescribed in four years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
The respondent Judge granted the motion to dismiss in an Order dated September 29, 1980, agreeing that the action had prescribed after more than seven years from the incident. The petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 17, 1981, seeking to annul the dismissal order. She contended the prescriptive period was ten years, as the action was based on a contract of carriage, and alleged bias on the part of the judge.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the respondent Judge’s order dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding it without merit. The Court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy in this case. The questioned order of dismissal was a final order that was appealable. The petitioner failed to avail of the correct remedy of appeal and instead resorted to certiorari as a substitute, without providing any justification for this deviation. The filing of the petition almost one year after the issuance of the dismissal order also constituted an unreasonable delay, even if certiorari were an available remedy.
Furthermore, the error imputed to the respondent Judge—the alleged mistake in applying a four-year prescriptive period instead of a ten-year period—involved an exercise of judgment in interpreting the law applicable to the cause of action. Such an error is not jurisdictional but merely one of judgment, which is not correctible by certiorari. A writ of certiorari is only available for the correction of jurisdictional errors, such as acts performed without or in excess of jurisdiction, and not for errors in the appreciation of facts or law.