G.R. No. 167938 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/167938.htm [21] an outright dismissal pursuant to Circular No. 2-90 which provides that, an appeal taken to either Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode [22] shall be dismissed. Moreover, a perusal of the issues raised by petitioners, although alleging grave abuse of discretion, are clearly for the correction of errors of judgment, not errors of [23] jurisdiction. If indeed errors of facts and erroneous appreciation of facts had been committed by the appellate court, still these would not amount to grave abuse of discretion. Where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render the decision the same is beyond the province of a special civil action [24] for certiorari. Neither can we treat the instant petition as one having been filed under Rule 45. We can only treat a petition wrongly filed under Rule 65 as one filed under Rule 45 if petitioner had alleged grave abuse of discretion in its petition under the following circumstances: (1) If the petition is filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or [25] final order or resolution appealed from; or (2) If the petition is meritorious. The instant case, however, does not fall under either of the two exceptions because Hanjins petition was filed 60 days after notice of the assailed judgment and in our considered view, the issues presented by the petition lacks merit. Conformably then, we are constrained to dismiss the instant petition for utter lack of merit. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 27, 2004 and the Resolution dated March 9, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74536 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson 6 of 9 1/25/2016 2:57 PM