When certiorari and ordinary appeal are not mutually exclusive, - G.R. No. 177611

G.R. No. 177611

"x x x.


Although certiorari cannot be generally used as a substitute for a lapsed appeal, the CA lost sight of the fact, however, that the rule had been relaxed on a number of occasions, where its rigid application will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice.[47]   This Court has allowed the issuance of a writ of certiorari despite the availability of appeal where the latter remedy is not adequate or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient or there is need to promptly relieve the aggrieved party from the injurious effects of the acts of an inferior court or tribunal.[48]  In SMI Development Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines,[49] this Court significantly upheld the CA’s grant of the Rule 65 petition for certiorari filed in lieu of an ordinary appeal which was not considered a speedy and adequate remedy that can sufficiently address the urgent need of the National Children’s Hospital to expand and extend quality medical and other health services to indigent patients.  Indeed, certiorari and appeal are not mutually exclusive remedies in certain exceptional cases, such as when there is grave abuse of discretion or when public welfare so requires.[50] ."