4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly reinstatement of the petition for certiorari already mooted any issue on the procedural vehicle's propriety. They then reiterated that Olivarez applies because of the matters regarding the illegality of possession, illegality of withholding of payments, and absence of notice of subsequent sale to another buyer were irrelevant to Olivarez's interpretation of when partial payments made on a contract to sell could be retained by the prospective seller. Rather, these circumstances were only relevant to the issue of whether or not rescission of the contract would have been proper.[40] The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed petitioners' appeal and ordered the reimbursement of the amounts paid by respondents. Preliminarily, this Court is tasked with resolving whether or not petitioners' recourse to a petition for certiorari is proper. On substantive matters, this Court must resolve whether or not the prospective buyer's failure to fully pay the purchase price on a contract to sell may result in the forfeiture of such partial payments absent a stipulation to that effect. This Court grants the petition. I While petitioners raise errors of judgement that fall outside the purview of the remedy sought, procedural rules may be relaxed in view of the ultimate goal of rendering substantive justice: The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "It is a more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not miscarriage of justice."[41] (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted) Microsoft Corp. v. Best Deal Computer Center[42] teaches that a petition for certiorari corrects only errors of jurisdiction, and cannot correct errors of judgment. As such, a Rule 65 petition "must raise not errors of judgment but the acts and circumstances showing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."[43] Petitioners cite Olivarez Realty Corporation v. Castillo,[44] indicating that the amounts already paid to the sellers under a contract to sell may be retained when the prospective buyers were placed in possession of the property prior to transfer of ownership. Petitioners are clearly arguing a point of law, which is correctible by an appeal and not by a petition for certiorari.[45] While a petition for certiorari may not substitute for a lost appeal,[46] this rule is not absolute. Punongbayan-Visitacion v. People[47] discussed instances when procedural rules may be relaxed: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66239 5/14