This is a petition for  a writ of certiorari filed with this court by Go Occo & Co. against Sixto de la Costa, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.  The complaint recites the following":

"That the plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with  domicile at Cebu, Cebu, and the defendant  is a Judge  of the Court of First Instance for the Province  of Cebu;

"For its cause  of action, the plaintiff alleges:

1. That, on March 25, 1935, plaintiff Go Occo & Co. filed an action with the justice of the peace court of Cebu, Cebu, to recover the amount of P467.25 against People's Bazar representing  the purchase price of goods taken on  credit. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued on the same against the defendant, and same was levied upon merchandise belonging to the defendant and taken possession of by the provincial sheriff of Cebu. On March  29, 1935, the estate of Laureana Antonio, through its administrator Alejandro S. Reyes, filed an intervention complaint  claiming the sum of P1,380 representing unpaid rent of a house occupied by the defendant's store in Cebu, Cebu.  Over the verbal objection of the plaintiff to the admission of the intervenor's intervention complaint on the ground that intervention complaint cannot be filed in the justice of the peace court and that intervenor's intervention complaint claimed the amount of P1,380 which was beyond the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court, the justice of the peace court of Cebu  tried the case and rendered judgment  declaring plaintiffs claim preferred  to that  of intervetnor's.  On May 4, 1935,  the  intervenor appealed from the  judgment of the justice of the peace court, paying the amount of P16 for docket fee on  that same day.  On June 28,  1935, the clerk of Court of First Instance of Cebu addressed a letter to the intervenor  informing him that he had to pay still the amount of P4 as the docket fee on that appeal was P20. Up to  the present time the said  intervenor has  not made good the payment of the said P4.
   
2. That, intervention complaint filed in the justice of the peace court  was not reproduced  by  the intervenor on appeal in the Court of First Instance.
   
3. That,  for non-payment  of  the full  docket fees, the case was not ready for trial, even if initiated  originally in the Court of First Instance.
   
4. That, on January  18,  1936,  the defendant judge entered on order declaring the plaintiff Go Occo  & Co., in default on  the intervenor's intervention  complaint.  On that same date the said defendant judge  entered a judgment declaring that the said defendant People's Bazar was in debt to the said  intervenor's  estate in the amount of Pl,380 and that the  said intervenor estate's claim was superior to any other  credit.   Upon  being  notified of the order of default and of the judgment, plaintiff Go  Occo & Co. filed a motion on February 5,  1936,  asking for the reinstatement of the case and for  the dismissal of  the intervenor's appeal.  (Here motion is reproduced in full.)
   
5. That,  on motion by the attorney for the intervenor, the hearing of the. aforesaid plaintiff's motion which  was set for February  11,  1936, was postponed by defendant judge to February 25, 1936, over the objection of  the plaintiffs attorneys, the objection  being for  the reason that plaintiff's right to appeal might lapse.  To assure  plaintiff's right of appeal, plaintiff filed an amended motion for reconsideration and for dismissal of intervenor's appeal on February 12, 1936.   (Here motion is also reproduced in full.)
   
6. On March 2, 1936, the defendant judge  entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration and ordering the  execution of  the judgment.   (Here  order is  reproduced.)
   
7. That, as aforesaid, the defendant judge has ordered the execution of the  judgment in the said case, and that unless enjoined  not to  do so, the said judge will proceed to have his order executed.
   
8. That, there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy for the plaintiff.

"Wherefore, this Honorable Court is respectfully prayed to order the defendant judge to certify the records of this case for a  review  by  that Honorable Court and to issue a writ of  preliminary  mandatory injunction  requiring the said judge  to recall the order of execution  of the judgment aforesaid."

It will be observed  that according to the foregoing petition, the court below issued various orders  in civil case No. 10606, Court of First Instance of Cebu, entitled "Go Occo & Co., plaintiff,  vs. People's  Bazar, defendant, versus Alejandro S. Reyes, administrator of the estate of the deceased, Laureana Antonio, intervenor."  Among these orders are: The order of January 18,1936, declaring the plaintiff therein in default, that of the same date in favor of the intervenor's claim, and that of March 2,1936, disallowing the motion for reconsideration presented by the plaintiff therein and ordering the  issuance of a  writ of execution.  The petition does not state which of these orders is assailed or was issued by the inferior court in  excess or extra-limitation of its jurisdiction  or  with  manifest abuse of its discretion.  Worse than this,  the petition  does not even contain a general averment that the Court of First Instance of Cebu in taking cognizance of the civil  case  aforementioned  acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.  It simply alleges in paragraph 8 thereof that "there  is no appeal nor  any other plain, speedy  and adequate remedy for the plaintiff."

The petition in this case is vague and indefinite.   The administration of justice is not a mattes  of guess work. While pleadings should be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties, courts  should not be left, to conjectures in the determination of issues submitted by the parties litigant or their attorneys.   Where, therefore, the pleading is, as in this  case, vague and  uncertain, courts will not allow themselves to be led to the commission of error or injustice by exploring in the midst of uncertainty and divining the intention of the parties or their counsel.

Accordingly,  the petition is hereby dismissed  with  costs against the petitioner.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J.,  Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, and Diaz, JJ., concur.