REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

JACKIE CHAN DELA CRUZ

Plaintiff,
Civil Case No: 100121
BP 22: Anti Bouncing Check Law
-versus-

ALBERTO ISAAC TOLENTINO,

Defendant.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

PLAINTIFF through counsel PETITIONS this Honorable Court and in support

thereof states:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to question
the Decision dated March 28, 20231, of the Honorable Regional Trial Court of Bacoor
City, Cavite, Branch 7 for having been issued in violation of due process of law.

1 Certified True Copy of the subject Decision is attached here as Annex “A”.
 DIRECT ACTION TO THIS HONORABLE COURT/TIMELINESS OF
THE PETITION

3. A direction Petition to this Honorable Regional Trial Court of Bacoor City,

Cavite was filed because petitioner was deprived of due process and there is an extreme
urgency for relief.

4. The subject Decision was promulgated on 28 April 2023 hence the present
Petition was filed within the 60 days prescribed period.

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. This is a case for violation of BP 22 against petitioner/accused.

6. In it, she was acquitted of any criminal violation.

7. However, the court ruled that she was civilly liable for the sum of the amount of
P620,000.00 plus legal interest of 6% and attorney’s fees of P20,000.00.

ISSUES

8. The issue is whether the MTC has the jurisdiction to award civil damages in the
amount of P620,000.00.

9. Whether or not the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction to make the said civil damages award.

DISCUSSIONS

10. In the case of Nuque vs. Aquino et.al., promulgated July 8, 2015, the Court states
that;
 Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that; Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without
or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings
of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, or

resolution subject thereof copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.

Aside from the remedy of appeal discussed above, our jurisprudence is replete
with cases holding that the plain and adequate remedy referred to in the foregoing rule
is a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution, the filing of which is
an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. It is true
that there are exceptions to the above rule, to wit: (a) where the order is a patent nullity,
as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the
certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are
the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent
necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action
perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be
useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency
for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the
granting of such relief by the trial court improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the
lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings was ex parte
or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised
is one purely of law or public interest is involved.

11. Thus, the Decision of the RTC denying the Motion for Reconsideration is void
ab initio for in violation of due process.

12. Having been issued beyond its jurisdictional amount, the same is an act
constituting as a grave abuse of discretion.
13. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
passion and hostility.

14. Unarguably, a Decision decreeing civil damages beyond the jurisdictional amount
of an MTC is one that has been committed with grave abuse of discretion and
should be reversed.

PRAYER

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is prayed that the 28 April 2023 Decision of the

Honorable Regional Trial Court be reversed and set aside for being void ab initio.

All relief just and equitable are prayed for, Quezon City for Manila City. May 19, 2023.

DIMAGIBALAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff
Lodi Office, Upper Ground Floor,
Universal Corporate Center,
Shaw Boulevard, Brgy. Wack-wack,
Mandaluyong City

By:

ATTY. TESSA E. DIMAGIBA

Lifetime IBP No. 212112/ 04 Jan. 2019 /Manila City
PTR: 323243 / 04 Jan 2021 / Manila City
Roll No. 12124242
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0019608, Issued dated 21 April 2022
 ATTY. MANNY B. VICTOR III
IBP No. 23232 / 16 Jan. 2019/ Manila City
PTR A-54545 / 14 Jan 2021 / Manila City
Roll No. 34343
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0020599, Issued dated 18 March 2023

Copy furnished.

ATTY. KEVIN K. ANTONIO

Counsel for the Defendant
Upper Ground Floor, Emerald Blg. Makati City, Philippines
Lifetime IBP No. 2352/ 04 Jan. 2023 / Manila City
PTR: 2424 / 04 Jan 2021 / Manila City
Roll No. 32424
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0019608, Issued dated 21 April 2023