In Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 484 Phil. 438 (2004), the Supreme Court had again stressed the difference of the remedies provided for under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to wit: x x x [T]he proper remedy of the party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not identical with a petition for review under Rule 65.
Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to SC by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific ground therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that to be taken under Rule 45.”
Relative thereto, one of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefore is grave abuse of discretion (ARTISTICA CERAMICA, INC. vs. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., G.R. Nos. 167583-84, June 16, 2010, PERALTA, J.).