4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Nevertheless, the general rule that an appeal and a certiorari are not interchangeable admits exceptions. In Department of Education v. Cuanan, the Court exercised liberality and considered the petition for certiorari filed therein as an appeal: The remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from notice of the resolution. Recourse to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 renders the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this rule, to wit: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. As will be shown forthwith, exception (c) applies to the present case.[48] (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied) In Punongbayan-Visitacion, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for being an improper remedy. Upon reaching this Court, it was held that a petition for certiorari may be treated as an appeal if the "interest of substantial justice warrants the relaxation of the rules."[49] Further, in Curammeng v. People,[50] procedural rules were relaxed "where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition."[51] Likewise, an argument raised for the first time on appeal may still be considered in order to recognize "jurisprudential developments since the RTC decision and the needs for substantial justice."[52] Olivarez was decided in 2014, and clarified relevant points of law that may not have been apparent to the lower courts at the time. Thus, petitioners' argument regarding "reasonable rentals" may be duly considered. While Punongbayan-Visitacion stressed the importance of timeliness in filing a petition for certiorari, even compliance with prescriptive periods may be relaxed when "the application of the Rule would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice."[53] In Tan v. Bausch & Lomb[54] this Court excused the delay in the filing of the petition for certiorari "on the basis of equity to afford respondent the chance to prove the merits of the complaint."[55] Needless to state, the acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Besides, the provisions of the Rules of Court, which are technical rules, may be relaxed in certain exceptional situations. Where a rigid application of the rule that certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, it is within our power to suspend the rules or exempt a particular case from its operation. .... https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66239 6/14