G.R. No. L-63612 January 31, 1985
SERAFIN DELA CRUZ, ELADIO MACENAS and RODRIGO DIAZ, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, EDEN GUEVARA DE BARADI and JOSE BARADI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of titles and damages before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-34657 and assigned to respondent Judge Antonio P. Solano. Private respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction. Initially, the respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss. However, upon reconsideration, the judge reversed his own order and issued an order dated October 20, 1982, dismissing the complaint. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was subsequently denied in an order dated January 14, 1983.
Instead of appealing the order of dismissal to the then Intermediate Appellate Court, petitioners filed with that court a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, seeking to annul the trial court’s orders. The appellate court, without requiring a comment from the respondents, promulgated a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, alleging that both the trial judge and the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, and whether certiorari was the proper remedy against the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling it to be without merit. The legal logic is clear: a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The respondent trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the annulment case. Consequently, its orders on all questions pertaining to the cause, including the order of dismissal, were issued in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Any error in such an order is an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, not by certiorari. Since petitioners chose the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari instead of a timely appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court correctly dismissed their petition. The Supreme Court emphasized that certiorari does not lie to correct errors of judgment where the remedy of appeal is available but has been lost. The appellate court’s act of dismissing the petition without requiring a comment from respondents was a valid exercise of discretion to avoid delay, as the petition was fundamentally infirm for utilizing the wrong procedural remedy.