THE LAWYER'S POST
"x x x.
Aggrieved, the company filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC to contest the MTCC decision, which the RTC denied, holding that the company is trying to circumvent the final and unappealable nature of decisions in small-claims cases, thus the company elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
“Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases states that:
SEC. 23. Decision. — After the hearing, the court shall render its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties.
The decision shall be final and unappealable.
The decision shall be final and unappealable.
Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.XXX”
x x x.
“In this relation, it may not be amiss to placate the RTC’s apprehension that respondent’s recourse before it (was only filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of [small claims cases], because it asks [the court] to supplant the decision of the lower [c]ourt with another decision directing the private respondent to pay the petitioner a bigger sum than what has been awarded.” Verily, a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment. Owing to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether or not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to the controversy.”
x x x."
"G.R. No. 200804, January 22, 2014, A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, vs. EMMA MONDEJAR, accompanied by her husband, EFREN MONDEJAR, Respondent.
x x x.
“In this relation, it may not be amiss to placate the RTC’s apprehension that respondent’s recourse before it (was only filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of [small claims cases], because it asks [the court] to supplant the decision of the lower [c]ourt with another decision directing the private respondent to pay the petitioner a bigger sum than what has been awarded.” Verily, a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment. Owing to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC Decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether or not the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to the controversy.”
x x x."
"G.R. No. 200804, January 22, 2014, A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, vs. EMMA MONDEJAR, accompanied by her husband, EFREN MONDEJAR, Respondent.
