G.R. NO. 170396 - ROBERTH B. TOLENTINO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND LOPE DULFO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, and pursuant to the aforementioned rule, the accused lost his right to avail of the remedy of a motion for reconsideration against the judgment of conviction. On December 1, 2005, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari praying that the trial court's Decision be set aside and a new judgment be promulgated acquitting him of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In his Comment, the Solicitor General averred that certiorari cannot be availed of in lieu of a lost appeal and thus prayed for the dismissal of the petition. Under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitioner's remedy was to appeal the trial court's Order of September 14, 2005 to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from his notice thereof. Petitioner received a copy of the September 14, 2005 Order on October 12, 2005. However, he did not interpose an appeal within the 15-day reglementary period. Instead, he filed the instant petition for certiorari which is not permissible. For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, to issue, petitioner must show that he has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against his perceived grievances. [1] Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. [2] Certiorari will lie only to correct errors of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy to correct errors of judgment. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a petition for review under the same Rule. [3] Moreover, this petition violates the hierarchy of courts. This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with the Court of Appeals. [4] However, the choice of where to file the petition for certiorari is not left to the party seeking the writ. We remind litigants and lawyers to our policy laid down in Vergara v. Suelto , [5] on hierarchy of courts, reiterated in People v. Cuaresma, [6] thus: This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be al