G.R. No. 153852 - SPOUSES HUMBERTO P. DELOS SANTOS AND CARMENCITA M. DELOS SANTOS, VS. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is denied. Ruling of the CA Aggrieved, the petitioners commenced a special civil action for certiorari in the CA, ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC when it issued the orders dated May 19, 2000 and June 8, 2001. On February 19, 2002, the CA rendered the assailed decision dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit, and affirming the assailed orders, [13] stating: Petitioners aver that the respondent Court gravely abused its discretion in finding that petitioners are in default in the payment of their obligation to the private respondent. We disagree. The Court below did not excessively exercise its judicial authority not only in setting aside the May 2, 2000 Order, but also in denying petitioners motion for reconsideration due to the faults attributable to them. When private respondent Metrobank moved for the reconsideration of the Order of May 2, 2000 which granted the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, petitioners failed to oppose the same despite receipt of said motion for reconsideration. The public respondent Court said For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendant Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, dated May 12, 2000, a copy of which was received by Atty. Philip Pantojan for the plaintiffs on May 16, 2000. There is no opposition nor appearance for the plaintiffs this morning at the scheduled hearing of said motion x x x. Corollarily, the issuance of the Order of June 8, 2001 was xxx based on petitioners [being] remiss in their obligation to update their installment payments. The Supreme Court ruled in this wise: To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari , the abuse of discretion on the part of the tribunal or officer must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. Petitioners likewise discussed at length the issue of whether or not the private respondent has collected the right interest rate on the loans they obtained from the private respondent, as well as the propriety of the application of escalated interest rate which was applied to their loans by the latter. In the instant petition, questions of fact are not generally permitted, the inquiry being limited essentially to whether the public respondent acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned Orders, neither is the instant petition available to correct mistakes in the judges findings and conclusions, nor to cure erroneous conclusions of law and fact, if there be any. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. A review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari . WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Orders of the respondent Court are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED