0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
240 vues2 pages
1) The petitioner filed various cases against defendants regarding rental payments and possession of property. The MeTC and RTC ruled against the petitioner.
2) The CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal for technical reasons regarding certification and lack of documents.
3) The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
4) The Supreme Court ruled the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction in dismissing based on technicalities, and granted the petition for certiorari in part.
1) The petitioner filed various cases against defendants regarding rental payments and possession of property. The MeTC and RTC ruled against the petitioner.
2) The CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal for technical reasons regarding certification and lack of documents.
3) The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
4) The Supreme Court ruled the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction in dismissing based on technicalities, and granted the petition for certiorari in part.
1) The petitioner filed various cases against defendants regarding rental payments and possession of property. The MeTC and RTC ruled against the petitioner.
2) The CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal for technical reasons regarding certification and lack of documents.
3) The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
4) The Supreme Court ruled the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction in dismissing based on technicalities, and granted the petition for certiorari in part.
DONATO, petitioner, counsel and thereafter initiated a petition for
vs. consignation of the rentals in a civil case. COURT OF APPEALS Following trial under the Rule on Summary Procedure, the MeTC rendered Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Certiorari; Error judgment several defendants, ordering them to of Judgment; Distinguished from Error of vacate the premises. As to the the rest the MeTC Jurisdiction; In order to determine whether the issued a separate judgment on the same day recourse of petitioners is proper or not, it is sustaining their rights under the Land Reform necessary to draw a line between an error of Law, declaring petitioners cause of action as not judgment and an error of jurisdiction.- duly warranted by the facts and circumstances of An error of judgment is one which the court may the case and dismissing the case without commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and prejudice. which error is reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one Petitioner appealed to the RTC. The RTC where the act complained of was issued by the sustained the decision of the MeTC. court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or Petitioner filed a petition for review with in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of the CA. The CA dismissed the petition on two discretion which is tantamount to lack or in grounds: (a) the certification of non-forum excess of jurisdiction. This error is correctible only shopping was signed by petitioners counsel and by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. not by petitioner himself, (b) the only annex to the petition is a certified copy of the questioned Facts: decision but copies of the pleadings and other Before us is a "petition for review on certiorari" material portions of the record as would support filed on July 17, 1997 which should be a petition the allegations of the petition are not annexed for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It assails the Resolutions1 dated March 21, 1997 ISSUE: and June 23, 1997 issued by the CA. Whether or not the jugdement rendered Petitioner Donato is the registered owner by the lower and the appelate courts were within of a real property. The petitioner filed a complaint valid jurisdiction. before the MeTC for forcible entry and unlawful detainer against 43 named defendants and "all Held: No. unknown occupants" of the subject property.3 In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz32 and Piglas- Petitioner alleges that: private Kamao vs. National Labor Relations respondents had oral contracts of lease that Commission33 that subsequent submission of the expired at the end of each month but were missing documents with the motion for impliedly renewed under the same terms by mere reconsideration amounts to substantial acquiescence or tolerance; they stopped paying compliance which calls for the relaxation of the rent; thereupon, petitioner sent them a written rules of procedure. demand to vacate; the non-compliance with said In dismissing the petition for review, the demand letter constrained him to file the CA had committed grave abuse of discretion ejectment case against them.4 amounting to lack of jurisdiction in putting a Private defedants denied non-payment of premium on technicalities at the expense of a just rentals. They contend that they cannot be evicted resolution of the case. because the Urban Land Reform Law guarantees The proper recourse of an aggrieved party security of tenure and priority right to purchase from a decision of the CA is a petition for review the subject property; and that there was a on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. negotiation for the purchase of the lots occupied However, if the error, subject of the recourse, is by them but when the negotiation reached a one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was passive stage, they decided to continue payment perpetrated by a court with grave abuse of of rentals and tendered payment to petitioners discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. In order to determine whether the recourse of petitioners is proper or not, it is necessary to draw a line between an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. This error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Inasmuch as the present petition principally assails the dismissal of the petition on ground of procedural flaws involving the jurisdiction of the court a quo to entertain the petition, it falls within the ambit of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The court refrains from ruling on the foregoing the issues that involvess factual issues which inevitably require the weighing of evidence. These are matters that are beyond the province of this Court in a special civil action for certiorari. These issues are best addressed to the CA in the petition for review filed before it. As an appellate court, it is empowered to require parties to submit additional documents, as it may find necessary, or to receive evidence, to promote the ends of justice, pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 9, B.P. Blg. 129, to wit; The Intermediate Appellate Court shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED.