The Supreme Court in Rigor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167400, June 30, 2006, reiterated the principle that a petition for certiorari cannot substitute a lost appeal, particularly when the alleged errors pertain to judgment rather than jurisdiction. This means that if a party believes a lower court made a mistake in its decision, the proper recourse is to file an appeal within the prescribed period. Certiorari, a special civil action, is only appropriate when the court acted without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and choosing the correct legal remedy to address grievances.

Right-of-Way Dispute: When Does an Appellate Court’s Decision Warrant Certiorari?

The case originated from a dispute over a right-of-way. The Rigors filed a suit for injunction against Rodriguez, seeking to prevent her from constructing a gate that would allegedly block their access. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Rigors, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision. Aggrieved, the Rigors filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in its appreciation of the facts and issues. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition outright, holding that certiorari was an improper remedy in this instance.

The Court emphasized that the scope of certiorari is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction. According to Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court:

Section.1. Petition for certiorari.– When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This means that to warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari, the petitioner must demonstrate that the lower court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and that there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. An adequate remedy is one that affords prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or tribunal. In this case, the Rigors failed to demonstrate that the CA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court noted that the Rigors’ challenge was directed at the CA’s appreciation of the issues and evidence, rather than its jurisdictional competence. The petitioners claimed that the CA erred by focusing on the issue of whether they had a right to use the contested right-of-way, instead of resolving whether Rodriguez had the right to close it. They also argued that the CA relied on Rodriguez’s allegation that they had no right to use the right-of-way, even though the owner of the property, Ligaya Rodriguez, was not presented to substantiate this claim. However, the Court clarified that these were errors of judgment, not of jurisdiction.

The distinction between errors of judgment and errors of jurisdiction is crucial. An **error of judgment** is one that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, while an **error of jurisdiction** occurs when the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Errors of judgment are correctable by appeal, while errors of jurisdiction are correctable by certiorari. As the Supreme Court pointed out:

But errors of judgment not relating to jurisdiction are, as a rule, correctable only by appeal, not by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. For, as long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any supposed error committed in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable and may be corrected by a timely appeal.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the availability of appeal precludes recourse to certiorari. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. In this case, the Rigors had the remedy of appeal by way of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the review of questions of law. However, they failed to file their petition within the prescribed period, effectively losing their right to appeal.

The Supreme Court also noted that even if the petition for certiorari were treated as a petition for review under Rule 45, it would still fail because it was filed beyond the 15-day period from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules provides:

Sec. 2. Time of filing; extension. – The  petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.

The Court reiterated the principle that an appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised in the manner and according to the procedures laid down by law. Timely perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

The Supreme Court sternly cautioned against using certiorari as a tool to delay the enforcement of final decisions. The Court emphasized that litigation must end sometime and somewhere, and that prevailing parties should not be deprived of the fruits of their victory through clever maneuvers by the losing party.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petitioners properly availed of the remedy of certiorari to question the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding a right-of-way dispute. The Supreme Court held that certiorari was not the proper remedy as the CA’s alleged errors were errors of judgment, not of jurisdiction.
What is the difference between an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction?	An error of judgment is a mistake the court makes within its jurisdiction, correctable by appeal. An error of jurisdiction occurs when the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, correctable by certiorari.
When is certiorari an appropriate remedy?	Certiorari is appropriate only when a tribunal acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.
What is the prescribed period for filing an appeal?	Under Rule 45, Section 2, a petition for review must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration.
What happens if a party misses the deadline for filing an appeal?	If a party misses the deadline for filing an appeal, the decision becomes final and executory. The party loses the right to appeal, and the decision cannot be challenged through ordinary means.
Can certiorari be used as a substitute for an appeal?	No, certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
What was the main reason the Supreme Court dismissed the petition?	The Supreme Court dismissed the petition because the petitioners were questioning the CA’s appreciation of facts and evidence, which constitutes an error of judgment correctable by appeal, rather than an error of jurisdiction correctable by certiorari. They also missed the deadline to file an appeal.
What is the significance of adhering to procedural rules in litigation?	Adhering to procedural rules is crucial because it ensures fairness, order, and efficiency in the administration of justice. Failure to comply with procedural rules, such as filing deadlines, can result in the loss of legal rights and remedies.

In conclusion, Rigor v. Court of Appeals serves as a clear reminder of the importance of understanding the proper remedies available in legal disputes and adhering to procedural rules. Choosing the wrong remedy or missing deadlines can have significant consequences, potentially leading to the loss of legal rights.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Priscilla T. Rigor, et al. v. Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals and Milagros Rodriguez, G.R. No. 167400, June 30, 2006