Rule 45, paragraph 4, of the 1997 Code of Civil Procedure requires, inter alia, that the application must indicate the essential particulars indicating the date of receipt of the publication of the judgment or final decision or decision, if any, the date on which a request for a new procedure or review was submitted and the notification of its refusal. However, such requirements are not required in a request for an extension of time to file a request for review under rule 45, rule 2, of the Rules of Procedure. Section .1. Application for certiorari.- If a court, body or official exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or outside its jurisdiction or with a serious abuse of power constituting the absence or exceeding of its jurisdiction, and there is no clear, prompt and appropriate appeal or remedy before the ordinary courts, A person thus aggrieved may submit to the competent court a In which he sets out the facts with certainty and requests that a judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the procedure of that court, chamber or official, and granting the ancillary remedies required by law and justice. It is equally elementary in the law of remedies that the application of an erroneous remedy is a ground for dismissing the application for certiorari. A document is not issued if the injured party can exercise the remedy. It is in the nature of things that a request for certiorari is made only if there is “no appeal” and “no clear, expeditious and appropriate remedy in the ordinary judicial process”. [Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia v Court of Appeal, G.R. No. 159010, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 286, 291] An appeal is considered “clear, prompt and proportionate” if it immediately releases applicants from the harmful effects of the judgment and the actions of the court or lower authority.
[Chua v. Santos, G.R. No. 132467, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 365, 374] In this case, the appeal was not only possible, but also prompt and appropriate remedy. [National Irrigation Administration v Court of Appeals, 376 phil. 362, 372 (1999)] Since the complainant Salvac had the right to appeal a request for review of certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure against the Sandiganbayan resolutions, she was virtually deprived of the right to petition on certiorari. For your information, a judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 July 2004 is cited below. Consequently, by bringing this special civil action for certiorari instead of an ordinary remedy under Article 45 of the Revised Rules of Procedure, the applicant Salvacion infringes the fundamental rules of procedural law. A party wishing to apply for a review of the certiorari must do so within 15 days of receipt of the judgment, final decision or appealable decision. In this case, the Sandiganbayan resolution of 23. On 22 August 2006, the petitioner Salvacion, who rejected the requests for reconsideration of the applicant Salvacion and the people. The immediate motion was filed only on 17 October 2006; thus, 56 days had already elapsed at the time of the submission of the present request, well beyond the 15-day period for filing a request for reconsideration under rule 45 of the revised rules of procedure; and even beyond an extended period of 30 days, if it had actually been requested by the applicant Salvacion, the maximum period to be granted by the Court would indeed have been requested.
As things stand, the applicant Salvacion has already lost the right of appeal provided for in Article 45 of the Regulation. The Court again reviewed various statutes and case law regarding the appeal process and the scope of judicial review of CACL`s arbitral awards. Of course, there is a lot between clauses 45 and 65. Clearly, however, jurisdictional errors can best be considered in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, while errors of assessment can only be corrected by appeal in an application for review under Rule 45. In certiorari proceedings referred to in Article 65, judicial review shall be limited to the correction of jurisdictional errors, including serious misuse of powers amounting to incompetence or incompetence. Article 65 could not be clearer on this point. It reads as follows: It is apparent from the record before the Court that the application was filed within the prescribed period under both Article 45 and Article 65. According to Delsan Transport, the motion, which has been cleared of allegations of serious abuse of authority, does contain computational errors that are the subject of a request for review. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, although Riviera complains that the Court of Appeal committed a serious misuse of powers amounting to lack of competence or excessive character, the immediate application is treated as an application for review under Article 45 and not as a special civil action for certiorari under Article 65 of the Revised Rules of Procedure. now the 1997 Code of Civil Procedure. NOTING the above, and in the interests of more effective case-law, the Court of Justice authorises the Registrar of the General Court to include in his report on requests for extension of the time-limit for submission of the application only the date on which the applicant receives the refusal/rejection of the contested decision and/or the rejection of the request for reconsideration.
provided, however, that a request for an extension of time for the submission of the application is counted from the expiry of the regulatory time limit and depends on the speed of submission of the application. The differences between Rules 45 and 65 are considerable, the most notable being that jurisdictional errors are best considered in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, whereas errors of assessment can only be corrected by appeal in an application for review under Rule 45. The rationale for this distinction is simple. Where a court exercises jurisdiction, an error so committed shall not deprive it of the jurisdiction exercised at the time when the error was committed. If that were the case, any error made by a court would deprive it of jurisdiction and any erroneous judgment would be void. This cannot be allowed. The administration of justice would not tolerate such a settlement. Thus, an error of assessment which the General Court might commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction cannot be remedied by the initial specific civil action for the certiorari. An appeal against a final decision of the Court of Appeal is brought, as in the present case, by means of an application for review under Article 45 of the Regulation.
The revised Rules of Court expressly provide that an appeal by certiorari against a final judgment or order or an order of the Sandiganbayan shall be made by means of a verified application for review by certiorari and shall raise only questions of law. In particular, Article 45 of Article 1 of the Rules of Procedure provides that, while Executive Decree No. 1008, Construction Arbitration Law (“EO 1008”), allows for appeal of CWC arbitral awards only on points of law and requires that the appeal be filed directly with the Supreme Court, this narrow remedy has been extended by various procedural rules. Notwithstanding Order in Council 1008, CIAC`s awards could subsequently be appealed to the Court of Appeal on factual or legal grounds, or both. A memorandum is submitted to the Tribunal for consideration, which is addressed to the Honourable Judge Reynato S. Puno as President of the Second Division of Atty. Ludichi Yasay-Nunag, Registrar of that Division, in respect of applications for an extension of time under Rule 45, Article 2, of the 1997 Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, in which an application for review of certiorari may be made, which challenges not only the judgment of the lower court or the governmental authority, but also the decision rejecting the request for review. The Registrar of the Division of the Tribunal seeks leave to discontinue the policy of requesting a full indication of essential data in such requests for extensions of time. And if it is true that, in accordance with the liberal spirit that permeates the order of the court, and in the interests of substantial justice [Oaminal v. Castillo, 459 Phil.
542, 556 (2003)], prior to [Id.] we treated an application for certiorari as an application for review of certiorari, but only if the former was filed within the statutory time limit for filing the latter. Unfortunately, this exception does not apply to the current situation. This motion for certiorari was made well beyond the statutory time limit for filing a motion for review, without any reason being given. As the construction contract contained an arbitration clause, RSII initiated arbitration proceedings with the CIAC. An arbitral tribunal constituted under the auspices of CIAC then conducted the arbitration and rendered an arbitral award partially rejecting the remedies sought by the parties.
