G.R. No. 168394
October 6, 2008
AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), represented by JOSEPHINE B. OMICTIN,petitioner,
LORETO G. NICOLAS and OLIMPIO CRUZ, respondents.
Before We rule on the issues, there is a need to discuss the propriety of petitioner's appeal. As aptly indicated in its pleading, this is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, a perusal of the errors ascribed by petitioner to the CA shows that they all pertain to allegations of abuse of discretion. In fact, petitioner clearly stated that "all three errors constitute abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction."
This Court has consistently elaborated on the difference between Rule 45 and 65 petitions. A petition for review oncertiorari under Rule 45 is an ordinary appeal. It is a continuation of the case from the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC, or other courts. The petition must only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth and discussed.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action. It seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one in which the act complained of was issued by the court, officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. The purpose of the remedy of certiorari is to annul void proceedings; prevent unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority; and provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice.
Applying the foregoing, errors in the appreciation of evidence may only be reviewed by appeal and not by certioraribecause they do not involve any jurisdictional ground. Likewise, errors of law do not involve jurisdiction and may only be corrected by ordinary appeal.