MARCO CONSTITUCIONAL

15.2. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65: A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS THE PROPER REMEDY WHEN ANY TRIBUNAL, BOARD OR OFFICER EXERCISING JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS HAS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND THERE IS NO APPEAL, NOR ANY PLAIN SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW.

(HENRY CHING TIU, ET AL., VS.PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, G.R. NO.

151932, AUGUST 19, 2009, PERALTA, J.)

15.3. UNDER RULE 46, SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO BE VERIFIED AND ACCOMPANIED BY A SWORN CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING. (CANDELARIO L. VERZOSA, JR. VS. GUILERMO N. CARAGUE, G.R.

NO. 157838, MARCH 8, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

15.4. THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DISMISS CANNOT BE QUESTIONED IN A CERTIORARI PROCEEDING UNDER RULE 65 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE IS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION. (ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA VS.

FERNANDO SORIANO JR., ET AL., G.R. NO. 153829, AUGUST 17, 2011^, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

15.5. TRADITIONAL RULE: PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL COURTESY: Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final determination of the petition before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly what was before this court. This Court explained, however, that the rule on "judicial courtesy" applies where “there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court [or court of origin (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), G.R. NO. 166859, JUNE 26, 2006, CARPIO MORALES, J.)

15.5.1. PRESENT RULE: THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI SHALL NOT INTERRUPT THE COURSE OF THE PRINCIPAL CASE, UNLESS A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HAS BEEN ISSUED, ENJOINING THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT FROM FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE. (AMENDMENT OF SECTION 7, RULE 65 BY A.M. NO. 07-7-12-SC, DECEMBER 12, 2007). (SPOUSES ROGELIO MARCELO AND MILAGROS MARCELO VS.LBC BANK, G.R. NO. 183575, APRIL 11, 2011, CARPIO, J.).

15.6. A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is

an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved.

(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.

(BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG VS. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. NO. 162575, DECEMBER 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

15.7. THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE THE LATTER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE. To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for being the wrong remedy. Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to this general rule, to wit: 1) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; 2) when the broader interest of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued are null and void; 4) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority; 5) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; or 6) in other meritorious cases. None of the above exceptions are present in the instant case; hence, we apply the general rule. Respondent not having availed himself of the proper remedy to assail the dismissal of the case against petitioners, the dismissal has become final and executory. (SANTOS VS. ORDA, G.R. NO. 189402, MAY 6, 2010, NACHURA, J.).

15.8. THIS COURT NOTES THAT GSIS FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT TO ASSAIL THE DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. PETITIONER AVAILED OF THE IMPROPER REMEDY AS THE APPEAL FROM A FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS A PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45 AND NOT A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION UNDER RULE 65. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., G.R. NO. 189206, JUNE 8, 2011, PEREZ, J.)

15.9. IN A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS AMPLE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE NEW EVIDENCE AND PERFORM ANY ACT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE FACTUAL ISSUES (SPOUSES ROGELIO MARCELO AND MILAGROS MARCELO VS.LBC BANK, G.R. NO. 183575, APRIL 11, 2011, CARPIO, J.).

15.10. ERRORS OF JUDGMENT ARE NOT PROPER SUBJECTS OF A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI. (ARTISTICA CERAMICA, INC. VS.

CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., G.R. NOS. 167583, JUNE 16, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

15.11. NOTICE OF APPEAL IS THE PROPER MODE OF APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE RTC IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65. (BF CITILAND CORPORATION VS. MARILYN B. OTAKE, G.R. NO. 173351, JULY 29, 2010, CARPIO, J.).

15.12. THE GENERAL RULE IS TO FILE THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITHIN THE 60-DAY REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. A 15 DAY EXTENSION IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AND THE REQUEST MAY ONLY BE GRANTED FOR COMPELLING REASON. . THE DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY SAID REQUEST LIES SOLELY IN THE COURT. CONSEQUENTLY, HEAVY PRESSURE OF WORK IS NOT CONSIDERED COMPELLING REASON TO JUSTIFY A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. (HEIRS OF RAMON B. GAYARES, VS. PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION, AND KUWAIT OIL TANKER, CO., S.A.K., G.R. NO. 178477, JULY 16, 201, DEL CASTILLO, J.).

16. DIRECT AND COLLTERAL ATACK ON THE TITLE: The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement.

On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof (ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA VS. FERNANDO SORIANO JR., ET AL., G.R. NO. 153829, AUGUST 17, 2011,VILLARAMA, JR., J.).