PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES

I. PETITIONER DAKILAS FILING OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

WITH THE SUPREME COURT UNDER RULE 65 IS NOT PROPER

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action which seeks to correct errors
resulting from errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction (rule 65). Herein petitioner Dakila filed the petition for certiorari on the ground of
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.1

In grave abuse of discretion cases, certiorari is appropriate if the petitioner can establish
that the lower court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and
expeditious relief. The petitioner carries the burden of showing that the
attendant facts and circumstances fall within any of the cited instances.2

It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged in and established by the
petition: (1) that the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions; (2) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3)
that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

A. That the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions

Petitioners action for certiorari is directed against Judge Jose Manuel Mariano, presiding
judge of Branch 5 Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila. Hence, the first requisite is present,
i.e. the writ is directed against Judge Mariano, an officer exercising judicial functions.

B. That such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

A petition for certiorari will only prosper if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The
burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing

1
C. 25.
2
Galzote v. Briones, G.R. No. 164682, Sep. 14, 2011.
the impugned order. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave
abuse of discretion has a technical and set meaning. Grave abuse of discretion is a capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty
or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.3

Petitioner Dakila questions the acquittal of herein public respondents. Judge Mariano
acquitted the private respondents on the grounds that the acts imputed to them were not crimes
under the mentioned laws, and that respondents acts were in the exercise of their constitutional
rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.4 Hence, in issuing the assailed order,
Judge Mariano complied with his constitutional mandate which provides that no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based 5. A petition for the writ of certiorari does not deal with errors of judgment. Nor
does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties' respective evidence or the
evaluation of their relative weight.6

C. That there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law

The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing
of a petition for certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual
or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of
the case. The rationale of the rule rests upon the presumption that the court or administrative body
which issued the assailed order or resolution may amend the same, if given the chance to correct
its mistake or error. The plain speedy, and adequate remedy referred to in Section 1, Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned order or resolution.7 This rule,
though, has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest
is involved, or (3) in case of urgency.8

Petitioner Dakila alleges that the matter was of extreme urgency, in light of the fact that
President Rodrigo Duterte would be assuming presidency by July 1, 2016. She reasoned that his
supporters might be further emboldened to harass her and others like her who openly opposed
Duterte during his campaign.9

3
Office of the Ombudsman v. Magno, G.R. No. 178923, Nov. 27, 2008.
4
C. 24.
5
PHIL CONST. ART VIII 14
6
Romys Freight Service v. Castro, G.R. No. 141637, Jun. 8, 2006.
7
Commisioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 190680, Sep. 13, 2012.
8
Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, Sep. 4, 2002.
9
C. 25.
 The Supreme Court in a number of cases has decided cases involving matters of extreme
urgency which warranted the issuance of the writ of certiorari. Thus, the court held that this
exception is warranted in this case where execution has been ordered and the need for relief is
urgent10. In this case, the order issued by Judge Mariano is directed against private respondents
herein to pay civil damages, not against petitioner. Petitioners contention that the matter is of
extreme urgency is speculative and is not sufficiently established with facts. Moreover, petitioners
contention is not within the purview of the recognized exception of extreme urgency, i.e. the order
is not directed against her and she suffers no immediate damage as a result of such order. Hence,
petitioner must first file a motion for reconsideration to give chance to Judge Mariano to correct
his alleged errors before a petition for certiorari may be proper.

The private respondents, on the other hand, filed their own motion for certiorari in order to
equitably reduce the damages ordered upon them. In this case, the petition for certiorari is proper.
The decision of herein private respondent judge was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. In this
case, herein respondent judge was silent as to the basis of the award for civil liability. He did not
comply with his Constitutional mandate of expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which the decision is based. Furthermore, herein private respondents petition is within the
recognized exception of extreme urgency. They are being ordered to pay a substantial amount of
money incommensurate to their alleged wrongful acts. Hence, the petition for certiorari filed by
the respondents is proper.

10
Philippine Ports Authority v. Nasipit Integrated Arraste and Stevedoring Services, Inc., G.R. No. 174136, Dec. 23,
2008.