G.R. NO. 147525 - BONIFACIO ESPINOZA, VS. PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR OF THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION OFFICE OF PAMPANGA AND MARIA QUIBULOY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, he decided the case against petitioner. [7] Instead of immediately appealing from the adjudicator's decision, petitioner allowed the reglementary period to lapse. Thereafter, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The appellate court dismissed the petition as "unavailing and vacuous." [8] It reiterated the well-settled rule that certiorari lies only in cases of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. It stressed that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal. Now, petitioner comes to us with practically a rehash of the issues already raised in the CA, to wit: I. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR OF THE [PARAD] OF PAMPANGA IS CORRECT IN PROCEEDING WITH DARAB CASE NO. 203-P-90 WITHOUT FIRST COMPLYING WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1, RULE III OF THE [1989] DARAB REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE. II. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR OF THE [PARAD] OF PAMPANGA IS CORRECT IN DECIDING DARAB CASE NO. 203-P-90 WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS. III. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER'S ANSWER TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S COMPLAINT IN DARAB CASE NO. 203-P-90 WAS FILED OUT OF TIME AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAME. IV. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS CORRECT IN DECIDING DARAB CASE NO. 203-P-90 IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVIT OF THE LATTER AND HER LONE WITNESS CONSIDERING HER FAILURE TO PRESENT THE TITLE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION (TCT NO. 3676) OR ANY DOCUMENT TO SHOW HER AUTHORITY TO ACT AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SAME. V. WHETHER OR NOT THE [CA's] DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND DENIAL OF [PETITIONER'S] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS PROPER. [9] We deny the petition. A special civil action of certiorari is an independent action, raising the question of jurisdiction where the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. [10] The ultimate purpose of such action is to keep an inferior tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction or relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts. [11] A petition for certiorari was never meant as a mode of reviewing errors of judgment committed by an inferior tribunal. Thus, it has been settled that the remedy of certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal lost by the party entitled thereto especially if the right of appeal was lost through negligence. [12] When the remedy of appeal is available but is lost due to petitioner's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies, resort to certiorari is precluded. Under the 1989 DARAB Rules, [13] an aggrieved party may appeal the decision of a provincial adjudicator to the Adjudication Board within 15 days from receipt. In this case, petitioner allowed the appeal period to lapse and instead filed a petition for certiorari