Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v CA (334 SCRA 305)

Certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion and that there is no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The abuse of discretion
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty. It seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction. Also certiorari is not allowed when a
party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy.
On the other hand, Rule 45 as a petition for review seeks to correct errors of judgment which include errors of procedure or mistakes in the courts
findings. All errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment.

FACTS:
Banco Fil sold to Tala Realty 4 lots in Iloilo. Tala then leased the properties back to Banco Fil for a monthly rental of P21,000 for a period of 20 years.
Tala demanded payment for rentals but Banco Fil failed to comply with their obligation so Tala filed numerous ejectment suits against Banco Fil.
Incidentally, Banco Fil also filed 16 other complaints for recovery of real property to which Tala filed a Motion to Dismiss (MtD). The trial court granted
the MtD and denied Banco Fils Motion for Reconsideration.
Banco Fil, instead of filing an appeal, filed a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 alleging that the trial court acted with grave abuse of
discretion because it did not comply with the constitutional mandate on the form for decisions. CA dismissed the certiorari stating that Rule 65 may be
granted only when theres no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.
Banco Fil received the copy of the CAs decision and filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which the CA again denied. Banco Fil filed another petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 this time with the SC.

ISSUE:
Whether appeal to SC under Rule 65 is proper.

HELD:
NO. SC immediately dismissed petition for the violation of the basic rules of Remedial Law. The proper remedy from the CAs adverse resolutions to
the SC is an ordinary appeal via petition for review under Rule 45.
Certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion and that there is no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The abuse of discretion must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty. It seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction. Also certiorari is not allowed when a party to
a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy.
On the other hand, Rule 45 as a petition for review seeks to correct errors of judgment which include errors of procedure or mistakes in the courts
findings. All errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment.
In the case, Banco Fils allegations that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion were only bare allegations since Banco Fil even admitted that the
CA labored out a 33-page rationale on the decision of their case, thus, the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion.
Note that, the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Hence, the availability to Banco Fil of the
remedy under Rule 45 effectively foreclosed its right to resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Also note that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lapsed or lost remedy of appeal. In the case, Banco Fils recourse under Rule 65 cannot
be taken, because when it filed a petition for certiorari to the SC, the reglementary period for filing a petition for review under Rule 45 to the CA had
already lapsed.