G.R. No. L-8979; March 22, 1916
ADRIANO PANLILIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Adriano Panlilio filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on October 29, 1912. The petition challenged the action of the Provincial Board of Pampanga, which had annulled a resolution passed by the municipal council of San Fernando and ordered a new auction sale. The defendants (the Provincial Board) duly answered the petition. After hearing the parties, Judge Julio Llorente denied the petition for certiorari. Panlilio appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the Provincial Board of Pampanga exceeded its jurisdiction in annulling the municipal council’s resolution, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court denying the writ of certiorari.

The Court held that for a writ of certiorari to issue under Section 217 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure), it must be shown that an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

In this case, the Provincial Board acted within its jurisdiction. Section 5 of Act No. 1791 expressly conferred upon the provincial board the power to approve all acts, ordinances, resolutions, and orders of municipal councils that are within their powers, and to declare null and void those that are not. Therefore, the Board’s act of annulling the municipal council’s resolution was an exercise of its supervisory authority, not an excess of jurisdiction.

Even if the Provincial Board committed an error in its decision, such error could be corrected through an appeal. A writ of certiorari is not a remedy for correcting errors of judgment, but only for correcting acts done without or in excess of jurisdiction. Since the Board acted within its jurisdiction, certiorari did not lie.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.