G.R. NO. 157075 - RAMCAR, INCORPORATED, VS. HI-POWER MARKETING, LEONIDAS D. BOHOL, AND RHODORA A. BOHOL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly in the interest of justice. [19] Ramcar filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated 22 November 2002. [20] On 21 February 2003, Ramcar filed this Petition for Certiorari against the spouses Bohol and Hi-Power Marketing alleging that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion: (1) in refusing to consider the evidence of Ramcar showing that Bohol still has an outstanding balance on his loan; and (2) in reversing the final order of the RTC granting the writ of possession in favor of Ramcar. Ramcar contends that Bohol, by means of double crediting and wrong posting, made it appear that he has already fully paid the obligation. Ramcar also questions the nullification of the extrajudicial sale, contending that the legal requirements were observed by the sheriff in proceeding with the sale. The spouses Bohol, in their Comment, [21] assert that the instant petition is not the proper remedy as the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed Decision. They also refute the allegation of Ramcar that they have not fully paid the loaned amount. After a lengthy discussion of the facts of the case and the computations made by the CA, they posit that the documents on record clearly show that they have already fulfilled their obligation to Ramcar. Further, they submit that the documents which Ramcar attached to its petition have not been presented before the RTC, are utterly self-serving, and should not be accorded any probative value. Ultimately, the issue to be decided in this case is whether Bohol has already satisfied his obligation to Ramcar in full. The present petition must be dismissed for failure of Ramcar to prove that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose as its function is limited to keeping the inferior courts within the bounds of its jurisdiction. [22] In this case, although Ramcar alleged in its Petition that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, it did not in any manner show how the appellate court committed such abuse. It is an empty allegation bereft of any substantiation. The original action for certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order of the court prior to appeal from the judgment or where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy. [23] There was a plain, speedy or adequate remedy available to Ramcar. It could and should have filed an appeal assailing the Decision of the CA. It is worth mentioning that Ramcar received the Resolution of the CA denying its Motion for Reconsideration on 23 December 2002. [24] Ramcar filed its Petition for Certiorari on 21 February 2003 or sixty (60) days after receipt of the Resolution. Since Ramcar failed to appeal within fifteen (15) days from its receipt of the Resolution, the dec