3. Error of Jurisdiction vs. Error of Judgment

ERROR OF JURISDICTION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ERROR OF JUDGMENT

Jurisdictional Errors

• Without jurisdiction – Respondent does not have the legal power to determine the case (Sps. Dacudao v. SOJ, G.R. No. 186056, 2013).
• Excess of jurisdiction – Respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps his authority as determined by law.
• Grave abuse of discretion – generally refers to a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law. (Atty. Allan Hilbero v. Florencia Morales, Jr., G.R. No. 198760, 2017).

Error of Judgment

One which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

As long as the court acts within the jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment which are correctable by appeal. (Cabrera v, Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, 2006).

These errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings (Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 132703, 2000).

Error of Jurisdiction

An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction. (Cabrera v. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, 2006).

It may happen either when a court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law or when the court, although with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. (GSIS v. Olisa, G.R. No. 126874, 1999).

Errors of jurisdiction are correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari (Tolentino v. Leviste, G.R. No: 156118, 2004).

When Rule 65 Petition is Available

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. (Indoyon vs. CA, G.R. No. 193706, 2013) (N.B.: In this case, the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was filed 35 days after notice of resolution, by which time petitioner had therefore lost his appeal under Rule 45.)

The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Although it is true that the SC may treat a petition for certiorari (under Rule 65) as having been filed under Rule 45 to serve the higher interest of justice, it cannot be availed of when the petition is filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review (under Rule 45) and without offering any reason therefor. (Banco Filipino v. CA, G.R. No. 132703, 2000; Sandoval v. Calipan G.R. No. 200727, 2013)

To be sure, the distinctions between Rules 45 and 65 are far and wide. However, the most apparent is that errors of jurisdiction are best reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, while errors of judgment can only be corrected by appeal in a petition for review under Rule 45. This Court, however, in accordance with the liberal spirit, which pervades the Rules of Court, and in the interest of justice may treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, more so if the same was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review. (Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank, G.R. No. 163988, 2005)

Q: X is an assignee of a subdivision road lot. X applied for an Alteration Plan to consolidate the subdivision lot. Subsequently, HLURB approved the Alteration Plan. The separate titles were cancelled and new title, consolidating the lots, was issued to X. Y filed a complaint praying for the issuance of a permanent cease and desist order preventing X from developing and fencing the road lot. HLURB issued a cease and desist order against X. Without filing an appeal before the Office of the President, X filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. CA dismissed the petition outright for failing to exhaust available administrative remedies. Can X directly file a Rule 65 writ of certiorari without exhausting administrative remedies?

A: No. A writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only prove that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. Additionally, a petitioner must also show that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against what he perceives to be a legitimate grievance. An available recourse affording prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or tribunal is considered a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. (Spouses Rodriguez v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 183324, June 19, 2019)

Q: X, an employee of Corp A, was involved in an accident where he hit another vehicle with a company-owned bus. A case was filed, and as a result, X was convicted and ordered to pay the victim damages. However, the judgment could not be satisfied because X did not have any properties to pay for the damages. Hence, upon motion, the MTCC issued a writ of execution against Corp A, as X’s employer. With this, Corp A filed a Motion to Recall and Quash the Writ of Execution against it. Upon the MTCC’s denial of their motion, Corp A filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the RTC, which was denied. Corp A then appealed to the CA, which denied both Corp A’s appeal and its Motion for Reconsideration. Was Corp A correct in filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the RTC?

A: No. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error was committed. Otherwise, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. In the instant case, the primary argument of Corp A is centered on the supposed erroneous award of damages against Corp A’s employee, X, made by the MTCC. Such supposed errors merely pertain only to mistakes of law and not of jurisdiction, thus putting them beyond the ambit of certiorari. (Davao ACF Bus Lines, Inc. v. Rogelio Ang, G.R. No. 218516, March 27, 2019).

Q: The DENR issued an Order dated October 26, 2006, giving due course to X’s homestead application and recognizing that X was defrauded into waiving her interests in favor of Y. In an Order dated April 24, 2008, the DENR Secretary dismissed all motions. This Order became final and executory on July 30, 2008. The Municipality filed a Motion to Stay Execution and a Motion for Ocular Inspection. On February 10, 2009, the DENR informed the Municipality that it no longer has jurisdiction to act on the motions. The Municipality then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeking the annulment of the DENR Letter dated February 10, 2009. It argues that the DENR committed grave abuse of discretion when it did not resolve the motion to stay execution and motion for ocular inspection. Can the Municipality assail the Letter through a Rule 65 Petition?

A: No. The grant of a Rule 65 Petition for certiorari requires grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act is performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. Mere errors of law are not correctible via petition for certiorari. The aforesaid Orders of the DENR, the execution of which are sought to be enjoined by the Municipality, have already attained finality, with the Municipality failing to timely appeal the same. Hence, there is no valid reason for the DENR to stay their execution. It must be stressed that the subject matter of the instant case, as made manifest in the Certiorari Petition, is the purported grave abuse of discretion committed by the DENR in issuing its Letter dated February 10, 2009, and not its Orders dated October 26, 2006 and April 24, 2008.

The factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, such as the DENR, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed.

Error of Judgment vs. 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 (Rule 43/42). (Fortich v. Corona G.R. No. 131457, 1998) It may be an error in appreciation of facts or interpretation of law.

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 correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari (Rule 65). (Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, 1998)

Appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions, including the Office of the President, may be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for review within 15 days from notice of the said judgment, final order or resolution, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.

Applicability to NLRC

General Rule: This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines. (Rule 43, Sec. 2)

Exception: Judgments and final orders or resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission are now reviewable in the first instance, by the Court of Appeals on certiorari under Rule 65, but those of the Employees Compensation Commission should be brought to the CA through a petition for review under this Rule. (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, 1998)