Scribd
Upload
69 views3 pages

Interlocutory Order When Rule 65 Certiorari Allowed, Not Allowed To Review Interlocutory Order

The Supreme Court denied Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation's petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration in a civil case. The Court ruled that an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, and certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge an interlocutory order. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy for correcting jurisdictional errors and grave abuse of discretion, but not meant to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling.

Uploaded by

Erwin Sabornido
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views3 pages

Interlocutory Order When Rule 65 Certiorari Allowed, Not Allowed To Review Interlocutory Order

The Supreme Court denied Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation's petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration in a civil case. The Court ruled that an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, and certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge an interlocutory order. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy for correcting jurisdictional errors and grave abuse of discretion, but not meant to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling.

Uploaded by

Erwin Sabornido
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Interlocutory order; when Rule 65 certiorari allowed, not allowed to

review interlocutory order.

SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD NG BAGUIO CITY vs. JADEWELL PARKING


SYSTEMS CORPORATION, G.R. No. 160025, April 23, 2014; with companion
cases: GR 163052; G.R. No. 164107; G.R. No. 165564; G.R. No. 172215;
G.R. No. 172216; G.R. No. 173043; G.R. No. 174879; G.R. No. 181488. 

“x x x.

In this Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 of


the Rules of Civil Procedure, Jadewell assails the Orders of RTC-Branch 3
(Baguio City) denying its motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration in
Civil Case No. 6089-R.

We deny the petition of Jadewell in this case.

In Manuel Camacho v. Atty. Jovito Coresis, Jr.,168 we described the nature


of special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as follows:

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an
extraordinary remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. To invoke
the Court’s power of judicial review under this Rule, it must first be shown
that respondent tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial
functions has indeed acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, and
that there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Conversely, absent a showing of lack or excess of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, the acts of the respondents may not be subjected to our review
under Rule 65.

In Indiana Aerospace University v. Commission on Higher Education,169 this


Court ruled thus:

An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and so the proper


remedy in such a case is to appeal after a decision has been rendered. A
writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory
ruling; it is resorted to only to correct a grave abuse of discretion or a
whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Its function
is limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and to relieve
persons from arbitrary acts -- acts which courts or judges have no power or
authority in law to perform. It is not designed to correct erroneous findings
and conclusions made by the court.

In East Asia Traders, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, et al.,170 we


decreed:

The petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner with the Court of
Appeals is not the proper remedy to assail the denial by the RTC of the
motion to dismiss. The Order of the RTC denying the motion to dismiss is
merely interlocutory. An interlocutory order does not terminate nor finally
dispose of the case, but leaves something to be done by the court before the
case is finally decided on the merits. It is always under the control of the
court and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at
any time before final judgment. This proceeds from the court’s inherent
power to control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to
law and justice. The only limitation is that the judge cannot act with grave
abuse of discretion, or that no injustice results thereby.

East Asia Trader also reiterated our ruling in Indiana Aerospace. Further, in
Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation v. Hon. Perlas
Bernabe,171 we reiterated our rulings in East Asia Traders and Indiana
Aerospace. We had ruled in these earlier cases that an order of the trial
court denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, and to use a writ
of certiorari to assail it is improper.

The procedural policy in the cited cases was again referred to in Bernas v.
Sovereign Ventures, Inc.,172 highlighting the following:

Let it be stressed at this point the basic rule that when a motion to dismiss
is denied by the trial court, the remedy is not to file a petition for certiorari,
but to appeal after a decision has been rendered. (Emphasis supplied)

You might also like