LECA REALTY CORPORATION, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS.

Ruling

Accordingly, the government's lawyers had fifteen (15) days or until October 22, 2002, to file a motion for reconsideration with the CA; and, in case this motion was denied, another fifteen (15) days from the notice of the denial to file a petition for review under Rule 45. But it was only on October 20, 2003, more than one year later, that the Republic filed the present Petition for Certiorari. Presumably, it resorted to the special civil action because of its failure to file an appeal within the 15-day reglementary period. Time and time again, this Court has emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when "there is no appeal[;] nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." [13] That action is not a substitute for a lost appeal; in general, it is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum. [14] In this case, there was no reason why the Republic could not have moved to reconsider the assailed CA Decision or appealed it within the reglementary period. These procedural devices (reconsideration and appeal) were not only available; they would have also constituted plain, speedy and adequate remedies for questioning the alleged errors in the CA Decision. Besides, it is a hornbook doctrine that mere errors of judgment cannot be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari. [15] International Exchange Bank v. Court of Appeals [16] stressed this rule as follows: "x x x Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision - not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision - the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. Erroneous findings and conclusions do not render the appellate court vulnerable to the corrective writ of certiorari, for where the court has jurisdiction over the case, even if its findings are not correct, they would, at the most, constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari ." [17] (Emphasis supplied) Furthermore, petitions under Rule 65 must be filed within 60 days. In the present case, the Petition was filed after over a year. Faced with the inevitable brick wall, the Republic through the OSG invokes the principle that a lawyer's gross negligence will not bind the client. [18] The Republic imputes the failure to file a timely appeal to one of its lawyers, Solicitor Mauro Elinzano, who allegedly took no action after receiving the adverse Decision of the Court of Appeals. [19] In support of its claim, the OSG cites this Court's pronouncements that a lawyer's procedural blunder constitutes an exception to the rule that clients are bound by the mistakes of their counsel. Hence, it implores this Court to give due course to the Petition to prevent a miscarriage of justice. We are not convinced. First , the time-honored rule that the government cannot be estopped by the mistakes or errors of its agent is not without exce