REMEDIAL LAW>Civil Procedure>Rule 65>Grave Abuse of Discretion

MARVIN CRUZ and FRANCISCO CRUZ, in his capacity as Bondsman, Petitioners 

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
G.R. No. 224974, July 3, 2017
SECOND DIVISION

FACTS: In an Information, Cruz, along with seven (7) others, was charged with Robbery for unlawfully
taking four (4) sacks filled with scraps of bronze metal and a copper pipe.5 Cruz posted bail through a
cash bond. The private complainant in the criminal case subsequently filed an Affidavit of Desistance
stating that he was no longer interested in pursuing his complaint against Cruz. The Assistant City
Prosecutor Tan filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court.Cruz, through
his bondsman Francisco, filed a Motion to Release Cash Bond. The RTC denied the Motion on the
ground that the case was dismissed through desistance and not through acquittal. The Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Francisco was likewise denied. Cruz and Francisco filed a Petition for Certiorari
with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
Motion to Release Cash Bond. The CA rendered a decision dismissing the Petition. The CA anchored its
dismissal on the ground that Cruz and Francisco should have filed an appeal, instead of a petition for
certiorari, to question the denial of their Motion to Release Cash Bond. Cruz and Francisco filed a Motion
for Reconsideration but this was denied. Hence, this Petition was filed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy to
question the denial of a motion to release cash bond?

HELD: Yes. When a court or tribunal renders a decision tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the proper
remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The writ of certiorari is not
issued to correct every error that may have been committed by lower courts and tribunals. It is a remedy
specifically to keep lower courts and tribunals within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In our judicial system,
the writ is issued to prevent lower courts and tribunals from committing grave abuse of discretion in
excess of their jurisdiction. Further, the writ requires that there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy available to correct the error. Thus, certiorari may not be issued if the error can be the
subject of an ordinary appeal. As explained in Delos Santos v. Metrobank.

An essential requisite for filing a petition for certiorari is the allegation that the judicial tribunal acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion has been
defined as a “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law” In order to determine
whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy, it
is necessary to find out whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion as to
warrant the filing of a petition for certiorari against it.