JAVIER VS GONZALES

FACTS:

This case originated from a criminal case for murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder lodged in Branch
96 of the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora (the RTC of Baler) against Pepito (respondent).

Gonzales filed a Motion for Bail with the RTC of Baler which was granted.

Thereafter, Macatiag, sister of the victim, filed with this Court an Urgent Petition for Transfer of Venue which was
granted. While her petition was pending, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration12 of the Order of the RTC of Baler granting bail
to Gonzales but was denied.

Trial on the merits ensued.

On the promulgation date, Gonzales failed to appear. On the same date, a warrant of arrest27 was issued and the bond forfeited
in view of the nonappearance of the accused, who was deemed to have jumped bail.

On 22 December 2005, Gonzales still failed to appear without any justification.

The Branch Clerk of Court thereafter read the dispositive portion of Judge Buted's Decision in the presence of the public
prosecutor, the counsel de oficio, and the heirs of Macatiag. Macatiag had been killed on 14 December 2005, just a day before
the first promulgation date, and Gonzales was also an accused in her killing. Gonzales was convicted of the murder charges.

In less than a month after the judgment of conviction was rendered, or on 6 January 2006, private respondent Gonzales filed,
through Atty. Benitez, an Omnibus Motion34 asking that the judgment promulgated on 22 December 2005 be reconsidered and
set aside. Gonzales argued that he had not been properly notified of the promulgation of judgment; that he had not been
represented by counsel; and that the RTC had proceeded with deliberate haste in convicting him.

The trial court, now presided by Judge Soluren, gave due course to the motion of Gonzales and granted it. On 2006, RTC
acquitted Gonzales.

On 16 January 2007, she filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, citing grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Judge Soluren. CA dismissed.

ISSUE:

1. Whether a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a decision
of acquittal
2. Whether or not the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he promulgated the decision dismissing the
respondent

RULING:

1. YES.

While the OSG ordinarily represents the People in proceedings before this Court, We have in the past allowed private parties to
file certiorari petitions assailing rulings and orders of the RTC in criminal cases. 41 As early as 1969, in Paredes v. Gopengco,42 the
Court already held that offended parties in criminal cases have sufficient interest and personality as "persons aggrieved" to file
a special civil action of prohibition and certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65. That ruling was in line with the underlying
spirit of adopting a liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order to promote their object. Recently, We reiterated this
ruling in Almero v. People.43 Similarly, in the case at bar, We find that the ends of substantial justice would be better served and
the issues determined in a more just, speedy, and inexpensive manner, by entertaining the present Petition.
 2. YES.

Judge Soluren acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she gave due course to
respondent's Omnibus Motion. Aside from being the wrong remedy, the motion lacked merit.

The filing of a motion for reconsideration to question a decision of conviction can only be resorted to if the accused did not
jump bail, but appeared in court to face the promulgation of judgment. Respondent did not appear during the scheduled
promulgation and was deemed by the judge to have jumped bail. The fifth paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120, states that if the
judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies
available in the Rules against the judgment, and the court shall order his arrest.

The Court underscores the fact that following Gonzales's waiver of the remedies under the Rules, Judge Buted issued an Order
dated 22 December 2005. According to the Order, the case records shall be immediately forwarded to the CA for its automatic
review of convictions meting out the death penalty.
CAREER EXEC SERVICE BOARD vs CSC

DOCTRINE: It is well-settled that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and prohibition are resorted to only where 1. a
tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and 2. there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except in cases (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy
dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the questioned
order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority

FACTS:

Blesilda Lodevico (Lodevico) was appointed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on May 14, 2008 as Director III,
Recruitment and Career Development Service, CESB.

Lodevico possesses a Career Service Executive Eligibility since November 29, 2001, as evidenced by the Certificate of Eligibility
issued by the CSC.

On June 30, 2010, Office of the President (OP) issued Memorandum Circular 1 (MC1) which declared all non-career executive
service positions vacant.

On July 16, 2010: OP promulgated the Implementing Guidelines of MC 1, which states that all non-Career Executive Service
Officers (nonCESO) in all agencies of the Executive Branch shall remain in office and continue to perform their duties until July
31, 2010 or until their resignations have been accepted and/or their replacements have been appointed or designated,
whichever comes first.

Pursuant to MC 1, Abesamis of CESB issued a memorandum informing Lodevico that she shall only remain in office until July 31,
2010. Lodevico filed her appeal on the memorandum issued by Abesamis before the CSC.

CSC ruled in favor of Leodevico and declared the memorandum null and void.

Career Executive Service board filed an MR but it was denied.

Hence, this petition for certiorari. Respondents aver that the petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of appeal as Rule 43 is the
proper remedy.

ISSUE: WON Certiorari and Prohibition under rule 65 is proper?

HELD:

No. It is well-settled that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and prohibition are resorted to only where:

(a) a tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and

(b) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. ●
In the case at bar, it is clear that the second requirement is absent as petition for review under Section 118 of Rule 43 ·is
available to petitioners.

However, there are exceptions to the aforementioned rule, namely: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public
policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the
questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

In the case of Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Leyeco IV Employees Union-ALU, We relaxed the application of the rules of
procedure to meet the ends of justice. In Leyte IV, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of filing a
petition for review under Rule 43, but We gave due course to the petition to accommodate the broader interest of justice.

In allowing the liberal application of procedural rules, We emphasized in the case of Obut v. Court of Appeals, et al. that placing
the administration of justice in a straightjacket, i.e., following technical rules on procedure would result into a poor kind of
justice. Thus, a rigid application of the rules of procedure will not be entertained if it will obstruct rather than serve the broader
interests of