No. L-39861. March 17, 1986.
Main Topic – Rule 65.
Silverio filed a case for the recovery of the amount he entrusted to Mendoza, in connection with a proposed purchase of a Forbes Park realty. The trial court rendered its decision in favor of Silverio and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration instituted by Mendoza. Aggrieved, Mendoza initiated certiorari proceedings in the Court of Appeals seeking the annulment of the order of the trial court and the issuance of preliminary injunction against the petitioners. The Court of Appeals dismissed Mendoza’s certiorari petition and granted Silverio’s motion for execution for payment of the principal, legal interest and attorney’s fees. Mendoza filed for a certiorari petition questioning the authority of the court a quo to grant and order the partial execution of a judgment that had not yet acquired finality. Silverio filed a motion to dismiss Mendoza’s appeal with Court of Appeals on the ground that the said appeal rendered moot and academic or barred by the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. Mendoza asserted that the appellate court’s dismissal of his certiorari petition constituted no bar to his appeal, for the decision decreeing the said dismissal resolved not the merits of the controversy subject of the order a quo dated July 17, 1973 but the issue as to the jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion of the said court a quo in rendering the said order.
The motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals, Silverio filed with this Court the certiorari petition. Silverio seeks the nullification of the resolutions and the restraining order, alleging that the resolutions had been rendered and the restraining order had been ordered issued by the appellate court without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Whether or not the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of Mendoza’s petition for certiorari and the writ of execution precludes any appeal from the entirety of the original judgment.
No. Previous dismissal of Mendoza’s certiorari petition by the Court of Appeals questioning the order of execution pending appeal has no restricting effect whatsoever on the scope of matters for resolution in his appeal pending with the same appellate court. An appeal brings up for review errors of judgment committed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and the persons of the parties or any such error committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than an error of judgment. On the other hand, the writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Thus, in certiorari proceedings, the approach focuses on the actions of a court by which could be determined whether or not the said court exceeded the confines of its jurisdiction or proceeded without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; while in appellate processes, the approach centers on misconception or errors of law, misapprehension of facts, or misuse of procedural rules.
The dismissal of a petition for certiorari questioning the partial execution of judgment a quo pending perfection of an appeal, cannot be expanded so as to preclude or bar the appeal from proceeding to its logical course.
Disclaimer: This is my personal case digest. Use it at own risk. I do hope it helps!
If you want to view all of my case digests, you can find it here.