The following are cases which explain the Distinctions between Rule 45 errors of judgment can only be corrected

rrected by appeal in a petition for

and 65 review under Rule 45.

GO vs. CA
G.R. No. 128954. October 8, 1998
Where the trial court abuses its discretion by indefinitely suspending
summary proceedings involving ejectment cases, a petition for certiorari
may be entertained by the proper court to correct the blunder. In the
interest of justice and in view of the procedural void on the subject, an
appeal may be treated as a petition for certiorari for this purpose and
only in this instance, pro hac vice.
This Court, however, in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades
the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice may treat a petition for
certiorari as having filed under Rule 45, more so if the same was filed
within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.
The records show that the petition was filed on time both under Rules
45 and 65. Following Delsan Transport, the petition, stripped of
allegations of grave abuse of discretion, actually avers errors of
judgment which are the subject of a petition for review.

Nuñez vs. GSIS FAMILY BANK

RIGOR vs. CA, TENTH DIVISION
G.R. No. 163988 November 17, 2005
G.R. No. 167400 June 30, 2006
At the outset, clarification on petitioners mode of appeal is in order.
Petitioners and counsel confuse their petition as one Petition for Review
under Rule 45 with a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. For while they
We RESOLVE to dismiss the petition outright for being an improper
treat it as one for Review on Certiorari, they manifest that it is filed
remedy.
pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to
Rule 45 of the New Rules of Court. In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, judicial review is limited to
correcting errors of jurisdiction, including grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Rule 65 cannot be more
In Ligon v. Court of Appeals where the therein petitioner described her explicit on this point. It reads:
petition as an appeal under Rule 45 and at the same time as a special
Section.1. Petition for certiorari.- When any tribunal, board or officer
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, this Court,
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
in frowning over what it described as a chimera, reiterated that the
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no
alternative nor successive.
appeal, or 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
To be sure, the distinctions between Rules 45 and 65 are far and wide.
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
However, the most apparent is that errors of jurisdiction are best
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 while
justice may require.
xxx xxx xxx
For a writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only prove that the
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. He must also show that he
has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
against what he perceives to be a legitimate grievance. A recourse
affording prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts
of a lower court or tribunal is considered “plain, speedy and adequate”
remedy.
But errors of judgment not relating to jurisdiction are, as a rule,
correctable only by appeal, not by the extraordinary remedy of
certiorari. For, as long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any
supposed error committed in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing
more than an error of judgment reviewable and may be corrected by a
timely appeal.
With the view we take of this case, petitioners interposed the present
special civil action of certiorari as an afterthought. They did so not
because it is the speedy and adequate remedy, but to make up for the
loss, through sheer negligence or oversight, of the right of ordinary
appeal. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that the presence of a
speedy and adequate remedy forbids recourse to certiorari under Rule
65. Stated a bit differently, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute
for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available. Here, there can be
no denying the fact that the challenged decision and resolution of the
CA were not mere interlocutory orders but a final disposition on the
merits of the main case. Under the circumstances, petitioners’ remedy
was by way of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
under which only questions of law may be raised.
For obvious reason, the Rules precludes recourse to the special civil
action of certiorari if appeal by way of a petition for review is available,
as the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
alternative or successive.
At any rate, an appeal by petition for review under Rule 45, assuming
its availability, is now lost for the petitioners. An appeal is a mere
statutory right to be exercised in the manner and according to
procedures laid down by law, and its timely perfection within the
statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional.
RIVIERA FILIPINA, INC. vs. CA
G.R. No. 117355. April 5, 2002
At the outset, we note that, while Riviera alleges that the Court of
Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, the instant petition is, as it should be, treated as
a petition for review under Rule 45 and not as a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, now the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The distinctions between Rule 45 and 65 are far and wide, the most
notable of which is that errors of jurisdiction are best reviewed in a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, while errors of judgment
are correctible only by appeal in a petition for review under Rule 45.
The rationale for the distinction is simple. When a court exercises its
jurisdiction an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of
the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did,
every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and
every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be
allowed. The administration of justice would not countenance such a
rule. Thus, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the
exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original special
civil action of certiorari. Appeal from a final disposition of the Court of
Appeals, as in the case at bar, is by way of a petition for review under
Rule 45.