Leynes vs. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 154462. January 19, 2011.

Main Topic – Rule 45.


Spouses Superales filed a complaint for forcible entry, damages, and attorney’s fees against the Spouses Leynes before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). However, Spouse Leynes filed their Answer with Counterclaim and Motion to Admit Belatedly Filed Answer after the 10-day period for the filing of answer prescribed. Spouses Superales subsequently filed an Ex Parte Motion for Judgment, in which they prayed that since the spouses Leynes failed to file their answer to the Complaint within the prescribed period, then judgment could now be rendered based on the evidence and allegations contained in the Complaint. The MCTC rendered its Judgment denying the Spouses Leynes’ Motion to Admit Belatedly Filed Answer and resolving the case entirely in the Spouses Superales’ favor.

  The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the appealed judgment and refused to reconsider its earlier decision. The Spouses Leynes then filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals however, the petition was dismissed outright for being the wrong remedy and for failure to state the material dates. Thereafter, they filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court  charging the Court of Appeals, as well as the RTC and the MCTC with grave abuse of discretion.


Whether or not Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy which must be used by the petitioners.


No, the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The well-settled rule that certiorari is not available where the aggrieved party’s remedy of appeal is plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course, the reason being that certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are mutually exclusive. The special civil action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal which the petitioner already lost.


  • Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained.
  • A certiorari, the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance with its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts. An appeal is thus a continuation of the original suit, while a petition for certiorari is an original and independent action that was not part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained of.