• RTC - dismissed the case observing that the sworn statements
submitted
by
the
petitioner
and
respondents contained contradictory positions
People of the Philippines vs Hon. vs Hon. Gabo
appeal A perusal of the records will show that petitioner received the assailed CA Resolution on October 10,
GR No. 161083 • Petitioner filed a MFR, which was denied
2003. From that time on, petitioner had 15 days, or until October 25, 2003, to file an appeal by way of a
Facts: • A fire broke out inside the plant of Sanyoware Plastic Products Manufacturing Corporation
• Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before Certiorari before the
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
CA, which it denied; as well as the MFR was denied
Court. However, instead of filing the appeal on the last day of reglementary period, petitioner simply
• Investigations were conducted and the CIDG and IATF accused the following of Destructive Arson: a] Samson Cua Ting b] Wilson Cua Ting
• Respondents raised that certiorari does not lie
allowed it to lapse. Clearly, petitioner had an appeal,
considering that such special civil action is not and
which under the circumstances was the adequate
cannot be a substitute for an appeal or for a lapsed
remedy in the ordinary course of law. On this point
appeal
alone, petitioner's petition must be dismissed, as herein petition is without a doubt a substitute for a
c] Edward Yao d] Willy Tan e] Carol Ortega f] John Doe
• Petitioner's main argument hinges on the propriety
lost appeal. In any case, even if this Court were to
of the RTC's use of the equipoise rule rule in dismissing
set aside the procedural infirmity of the petition, the
the case which was affirmed by the CA; contending
same
merely after the filing of the information Equipoise Rule - shall properly come into • Petitioner submitted Sworn Statements, which were denied by the respondents in their CounterAffidavit preliminary
on
the
merits.
investigation,
the
play when the parties have already concluded the
an information for Destructive Arson be filed
a] Motion to Conduct Hearing to Determine Probable Cause and b] Hold in Abeyance the issuance of
grave abuse of discretion
any prior time nor merely after the filing of
The reliance of the RTC in equipoise rule is misplaced
information
but does not equate to an abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, but merely an error of judgment
Issue: Whether or not Petition for Certiorari under Rule
The sole office of writ of certiorari is is the correction
65 is applicable in this case
of errors of jurisdiction, including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
• Prior to arraignment and before warrant of arrest could be issued, respondents filed:
lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction or committed
presentation of their respective evidence → not at
State
Prosecutor issued a resolution recommending that
In a petition for certiorari , the court must confine itself to the issue of whether or not respondent court
All of whom are employees of Sanyoware.
After
fails
that the equipoise rule cannot be used by the RTC
g] Peter Doe
•
still
Held: NO
jurisdiction and does not include correction of
• A special A special civil action for certiorari under under Rule 65 of
public respondent's evaluation of the evidence and
