1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of the Honorable NLRC's assailed decision; and 2. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction when it concluded that what petitioner brought as issues in the petition for certiorari were mere errors in judgment and not errors of jurisdiction. [48] Petitioner insists that he alleged as ground for the allowance of his CA petition that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the Decision of the LA and dismissing his complaint. The fact that he did not specifically use the words "capricious" or "whimsical" does not remove his petition from the ambit of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[49] Moreover, the phrase "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction" means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, such that to state that the NLRC acted capriciously and whimsically would have been repetitive.[50] On the second ground, petitioner alleges that he raised only one issue in his CA petition, i.e., that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. The "issues" be subsequently enumerated supported the charge of "grave abuse of discretion."[51] The petition lacks merit. At the outset, the Court notes that the petition was correctly filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, it alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA, which is the proper subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In the CA petition, on the other hand, counsel made a general allegation of grave abuse of discretion committed by the NLRC, but formulated the issues as if the NLRC committed errors of judgment. The difference between petitions filed under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is so fundamental that it is extremely lamentable that counsel still confounds one for the other and misapprehends their purpose. To emphasize, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Court by filing a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[52] Through this remedy, the Court reviews errors of judgment allegedly committed by the CA. On the other hand, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not an appeal but a special civil action restricted to resolving errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment.[53] Jurisprudence instructs that where a Rule 65 petition alleges grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[54] An error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctable through the original civil action of certiorari. The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65727 5/14