2 Substantial Requisites of Rule 65 Petition
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 1. Petition for Certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy or 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.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certificate of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
There are two substantial requirements in a petition for certiorari. These are:
[1] that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of his or its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
[2] that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
For a petition for certiorari premised on grave abuse of discretion to prosper, petitioner must show that the public respondent patently and grossly abused his discretion and that abuse amounted to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power was exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
The March 1, 2004 order denied due course to the notices of appeal of both Equitable and respondents. However, it declared that the February 5, 2004 decision was final and executory only with respect to Equitable. As expected, the March 24, 2004 omnibus order denied Equitable's motion for reconsideration and granted respondents' motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.
The March 1, 2004 and March 24, 2004 orders of the RTC were obviously intended to prevent Equitable, et al. from appealing the February 5, 2004 decision. Not only that. The execution of the decision was undertaken with indecent haste, effectively obviating or defeating Equitable's right to avail of possible legal remedies. No matter how we look at it, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering those orders.
With regard to whether Equitable had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we hold that there was none. The RTC denied due course to its notice of appeal in the March 1, 2004 order. It affirmed that denial in the March 24, 2004 omnibus order. Hence, there was no way Equitable could have possibly appealed the February 5, 2004 decision.
Although Equitable filed a petition for relief from the March 24, 2004 order, that petition was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for relief under Rule 38 is an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional circumstances or where there is no other available or adequate remedy.
Thus, we grant Equitable's petition for certiorari and consequently give due course to its appeal. (G.R. No. 171545; December 19, 2007)
[2] that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
For a petition for certiorari premised on grave abuse of discretion to prosper, petitioner must show that the public respondent patently and grossly abused his discretion and that abuse amounted to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power was exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
The March 1, 2004 order denied due course to the notices of appeal of both Equitable and respondents. However, it declared that the February 5, 2004 decision was final and executory only with respect to Equitable. As expected, the March 24, 2004 omnibus order denied Equitable's motion for reconsideration and granted respondents' motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.The March 1, 2004 and March 24, 2004 orders of the RTC were obviously intended to prevent Equitable, et al. from appealing the February 5, 2004 decision. Not only that. The execution of the decision was undertaken with indecent haste, effectively obviating or defeating Equitable's right to avail of possible legal remedies. No matter how we look at it, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering those orders.
With regard to whether Equitable had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we hold that there was none. The RTC denied due course to its notice of appeal in the March 1, 2004 order. It affirmed that denial in the March 24, 2004 omnibus order. Hence, there was no way Equitable could have possibly appealed the February 5, 2004 decision.
Although Equitable filed a petition for relief from the March 24, 2004 order, that petition was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for relief under Rule 38 is an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional circumstances or where there is no other available or adequate remedy.
Thus, we grant Equitable's petition for certiorari and consequently give due course to its appeal. (G.R. No. 171545; December 19, 2007)