5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character. The special civil action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not mere errors of judgment, particularly in the findings or conclusions of the quasi-judicial tribunals or lower courts. For errors of judgment, appeal, if provided for by law, is the proper remedy and not certiorari. [4] Accordingly, when a petition for certiorari is filed, the judicial inquiry should be limited to the issue of whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.[5] The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment. Even if the findings of the lower court or tribunal are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari.[6] Certiorari jurisdiction is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction. [7] To depart from this well-established scope and breadth of certiorari by reviewing, and worse overturning, the assailed ruling (in the guise of correcting errors of jurisdiction even if they are plainly errors of judgment) plainly amounts to unwarranted judicial legislation, by indirectly creating a nonexisting right of appeal. Nevertheless, while a certiorari proceeding does not strictly include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence (that was the basis of the labor tribunals in determining their evidentiary evaluation should not conclusion),[8] the incorrectness of its result in negating the requirement of substantial evidence.[9] Indeed, when there is a showing that the findings or conclusions, drawn from the same pieces of evidence, were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, they may be reviewed by the courts. In particular, the CA can grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, made a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence.[10] A decision that is not supported by substantial evidence is definitely a decision tainted with grave abuse of discretion. b. The court's limited certiorari jurisdiction as applied in jurisprudence Unfortunately, the clear limits of a certiorari jurisdiction are somewhat a murky area in our jurisprudence. More often than not, the Court actively engages in reviewing the NLRC ruling without fully considering the absence of a statutory right to appeal. In fact, a survey of the Court's rulings will not be beneficial in determining the scope and breadth of the Court's supervisory power under a Rule 65 petition as distinguished from the Court's discretionary review power under a Rule 45 petition in labor cases. In effect, the supposedly final and executory character of the NLRC ruling was, more often than not, sidestepped as a non-essential legal consideration. The result was a deluge of labor cases before the Highest Court. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 14/31