Misappreciation of evidence on the part of the lower court, as asserted by petitioner, may only be reviewed by appeal and not by certiorari because the issue raised by the petitioner does not involve any jurisdictional ground

"x x x.

There are considerable differences between an ordinary appeal and a
petition for certiorari which have been exhaustively discussed by this Court
in countless cases. The remedy for errors of judgment, whether based on the
law or the facts of the case or on the wisdom or legal soundness of a
decision, is an ordinary appeal.21 In contrast, a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 is an original action designed to correct errors of jurisdiction,
defined to be those “in which the act complained of was issued by the court,
officer, or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack of in excess of
jurisdiction.”22 A court or tribunal can only be considered to have acted with
grave abuse of discretion if its exercise of judgment was so whimsical and
capricious as to be equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be
extremely patent and gross that it would amount to an “evasion of a positive
duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.”23

Therefore, a misappreciation of evidence on the part of the lower court, as asserted by petitioner, may only be reviewed by appeal and not by certiorari because the issue raised by the petitioner does not involve any jurisdictional ground.24 It is a general rule of procedural law that when a party adopts an inappropriate mode of appeal, his petition may be dismissed outright to prevent the erring party from benefiting from his neglect and mistakes.25 There are exceptions to this otherwise ironclad rule, however. One is when the strict application of procedural technicalities would hinder the expeditious disposition of this case on the merits,26 such as in this case.

x x x."

See -

ERNESTO DY,
Petitioner,
-versus-
HON. GINA M. BIBATPALAMOS,
in her capacity
as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 64,
Makati City, and ORIX METRO
LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION,

G.R. No. 196200
Respondents. SEP 11, 2013