Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51647:gr-157707-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:36:54+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 157707 - Marcial Fajardo v. Hon. CA, et al.
MARCIAL FAJARDO, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RUBY GAMBOA VDA. DE DIZON, ET AL., MYRNA ILAGAN VDA. DE MANGUNE, ET AL., CAPT. GENER MANGUNE, and OLIVIA PAYAD VDA. DE GUTIERREZ, ET AL., Respondents.
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision1 dated January 31, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48419.
It stemmed from four civil cases involving damages filed by the heirs of Alexander T. Dizon, Eduardo and Elizabeth P. Mangune, and Mario C. Gutierrez (the four victims), who died in a vehicular accident along the North Expressway in Angeles City. These cases, docketed at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 57 as Civil Cases Nos. 5215,2 5216,3 52174 and 5218,5 were filed against Perfecto Dacasin and petitioner Marcial Fajardo, being the driver and owner, respectively, of the truck which allegedly sideswiped the jeep carrying the victims.
Upon further investigation, Bagsic found at the truck's compartment a gasoline receipt indicating its owner to be a certain M. Fajardo. The lady attendant at the Caltex Gas Station of Balagtas, Bulacan confirmed to Bagsic that the said M. Fajardo is their customer.10 Petitioner, during trial, acknowledged ownership of the subject truck, an Isuzu six-wheeler truck with license Plate No. CCF-330.
On June 30, 1994, the trial court rendered its decision14 finding petitioner and Dacasin liable for damages. Upon review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision and adjudged double costs against petitioner and Dacasin.
After due consideration of the contentions and submissions in this case, we are in agreement that the petition lacks merit.
At the outset, in our view, this case warrants an outright dismissal. Time and again, we have ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before resorting to the special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct its error, if any.17 While this rule admits of exceptions,18 none is present in this case.
The records show that the January 31, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals was received by petitioner on February 12, 2003. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed before this Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on April 14, 2003. In doing so, petitioner did not afford the Court of Appeals an opportunity to rectify its alleged errors. Petitioner did not even attempt to explain why he was unable to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period or even explain why the instant case is an exceptional one.
In addition, petitioner adopted the wrong remedy in bringing this case before us. Instead of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioner should have filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
On the other hand, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, has a specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.22 Such is not the case here.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated January 31, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48419 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
1 CA rollo, pp. 91-99. Penned by Associate Justice Portia AliÃ±o-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Amelita G. Tolentino concurring.
2 Records, Vol. I, pp. 5-9.
3 Records, Vol. II, pp. 5-8.
4 Records, Vol. III, pp. 4-7.
5 Records, Vol. IV, pp. 1-4.
6 CA rollo, pp. 37-44. Penned by Judge Mariano C. Del Castillo.
8 Folder of Exhibits, Vol. I, pp. 22, 26 and 53.
9 Id. at 26 and 31.
11 Id. at 39, 49-51 and 63.
12 CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
17 Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142133, November 19, 2002, 392 SCRA 229, 235.
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
19 Tower Industrial Sales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165727, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 556, 569.
20 Mercado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150241, November 4, 2004, 441 SCRA 463, 470.
22 People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NOS. 158780-82, October 12, 2004, 440 SCRA 206, 212.
23 See Deutsche Bank Manila v. Chua Yok See, G.R. No. 165606, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 672, 693.
24 Estrera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NOS. 154235-36, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 86, 94 citing People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142051, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 605, 613.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.