This is an original petition for a writ of  certiorari filed by  Buenaventura Alandy and the spouses Policarpo  Pandy and Paciencia Edora against Honorable Eduardo Gutierrez- David, Judge of Branch II of the Court of  First  Instance of  Tayabas, Tan Chay & Co.,  and Crispo  Ella,  acting sheriff of the Province of Tayabas, praying that, after proper proceedings, the orders of the respondent judge, of May 25  (Exhibit F) and  August 23  (Exhibit I), 1935, respectively, be declared null and void, having been  entered in excess of his jurisdiction and  against the decision of February 2, 1933 (Exhibit B), in civil  case No. 3309  and also against the law, and that the acting sheriff Crispo Ella or his deputy  Prudencio Trinidad be enjoined from  proceeding with the public sale  of the properties of  the  herein petitioners  as advertised in  Exhibits J and K,  during the pendency of this  petition and  without an express  order of this court.

The pertinent  facts necessary to the resolution  of the questions raised in this petition are as follows:

In civil case No. 2364 of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, wherein Tan Chay & Co.  was plaintiff and Juan Baldovinb and Policarpio Pandy were defendants, judgment was rendered on September 18,1929, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

"For the foregoing considerations,  the  defendant Juan Baldovino is  ordered to  pay to the plaintiff the sum of P2,602.50 with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint, June 19, 1928; and in case of non-payment by the defendant Juan Baldovino of P2,000 of the above sum, the other defendant Policarpo Pandy is  also ordered to  pay said sum of P2,000 with interest.  Both defendants are ordered to pay the costs of the present suit."

As said judgment had become final and the corresponding writ of execution had been issued, the respondent sheriff attached and sold at public auction the properties of the principal  debtor Juan Baldovino, as well as two supposed estates of the codef endant surety Policarpo Pandy.  In view of said attachment, Paciencia Edora, one of the herein petitioners and wife of the surety Policarpo Pandy, brought an action in  the  Court  of First Instance of Tayabas against Tan Chay & Co. and the provincial sheriff of Tayabas, which was docketed as No. 2721,  to annul the sale at public auction of said two parcels of land supposedly of her husband Policarpo Pandy, claiming to be the owner thereof.

After the complaint had been  answered,  the parties made a compromise dated May  26,  1930  (Exhibit  1), whereby said spouses Policarpo  Pandy and Paciencia Edora undertook to pay,  upon failure of the debtor Juan Baldovino, not  only the sum of P2,000 stated in the judgment rendered in civil case No.  2364, but the whole indebtedness of said Juan  Baldovino,  minus certain accrued interest This compromise was approved  by the court, and a decision based thereon was rendered in  said civil case No. 2721 on May 26,1932, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

"Judgment is rendered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the foregoing stipulation, and the parties are ordered to comply therewith, without costs."

Twenty days after this last decision had been rendered, or on June 14, 1930, the compromise (Annex 1),  was novated by another  (Annex 2) whereby the spouses Policarpo Pandy and Paciencia Edora bound themselves subsidiarily as sureties to pay the amounts in question within ten days from the expiration of two years counted from the date of said compromise; with the understanding,  however, that the liability of said spouses was  limited  to the sum of P2,000 of the  principal, and that of the surety Buenaven- tura Alandy, to  the balance of the debt after  deducting said sum of P2,000; and to secure compliance with these obligations, they  constituted the mortgages in question on their respective properties.

The period fixed in the compromise of June 14,1930 having elapsed, and the herein petitioners having failed to comply with the  stipulation therein, Tan Chay & Co., on July 8, 1932, brought an action in the  Court of First In- stance of Tayabas based on said compromise and mortgage dated June 14,1930.  Said action was docketed as civil case No. 3309, with the herein petitioners as defendants.  On February 2, 1933, judgment (Exhibit B) was rendered the dispositive part of which reads:

"For the foregoing considerations the court orders  (a) the defendants Juan Baldovino, Policarpo Pandy and Paciencia Edora, jointly and severally, to pay to the  plaintiff, within three  months, the  sum of two thousand  pesos (P2,000), with legal interest thereon from the date of this judgment until fully paid;

"(b) The defendants Juan Baldovino and Buenaventura Alandy, jointly and severally, to pay to said plaintiff, within the same period and with the same rate of interest, the sum of six hundred two pesos and fifty centavos (P602.50) ;

"(c) That in  case  of  failure to pay the  above-stated amount within said period, it is hereby ordered that the properties mortgaged  and described in the  complaint be sold at public auction in order  that the proceeds thereof may be applied to said respective obligations of the defendpants,  with half of the costs to Juan Baldovino  and the spouses Pandy and Edora, and the other half to Juan Baldovino and Buenaventura Alandy.

"It is so ordered."

On March 24,  1933, the court, deciding the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff company,  entered the following order (Exhibit C):

"The plaintiff prays that the decision rendered in this case be reconsidered and modified by ordering the defendants Juan Baldovino and Buenaventura Alandy, jointly and severally, £o pay within three  (3) months P602.50 plus legal interest on P2,602.50 from June 19,  1928, to the date of the complaint and legal interest on P602.50 from the date of the complaint until  paid,  and P56.84  as costs in the former case.

"Inasmuch as the grounds of this motion for reconsider- ation appear from the pronouncements of said decision, the court hereby grants the motion and modifies the said decision as above indicated and prayed for.

"It is so ordered."

The latter judgment, as modified, having become final, it was executed by the public sale of the properties mortgaged by Buenaventura Alandy and the spouses  Policarpo Pandy and Paciencia Edora to secure the payment of the respective amounts assumed by them, the proceeds of which proved insufficient to cover said amounts.  In view whereof, the plaintiff Tan Chay & Co. filed a motion for the issuance of a deficiency judgment which was granted in the court's order of May 25, 1935  (Exhibit F), reading:

"Granting the motion of Attorney Godofredo Reyes, it is ordered that an  ordinary  writ  of execution be  issued as prayed for therein.  So ordered."

The petitioner Buenaventura Alandy as well as ttie petitioner-spouses Policarpo Pandy and  Paciencia Edora respectively filed motions for reconsideration  praying that the deficiency judgment  rendered against them be set aside alleging that their liability was limited to  the proceeds of their mortgaged properties.

The Court of First Instance of Tayabas, in an order dated August 28, 1935, denied the  motion for reconsideration dated June 6, 1935, filed by Buenaventura Alandy, as well as that of the spouses Policarpo Pandy and Paciencia Edora dated June 8, 1935.

None of the herein petitioners excepted to this order deny- ing the above stated motions for reconsideration.

After about two months and twenty days, and after the order of August 23,1935, in question had become final, said defendants, filed the present petition with this courjt.

The first question to be decided, which is raised in the answer filed by the respondents, is whether or not the present petition should be granted.

Section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

"Sec. 514. Procedure in certiorari. The Supreme Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance in certiorari proceedings over any other inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions that has exceeded the  jurisdiction of such tribunal, board, or officer and where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, or adequate  remedy; and  shall likewise have original jurisdiction  by certiorari  proceedings  over the proceedings of Courts of First Instance wherever said courts have exceeded their  jurisdiction,  and there is no plain,  speedy, and adequate remedy by bill of exceptions, or appeal, or otherwise. The proceedings of the Supreme  Court in certiorari proceedings shall be the same as those provided for such proceedings  for Courts of First  Instance  in  sections two hundred and seventeen, two hundred  arid eighteen, two hundred and nineteen, two hundred and  twenty, and two hundred and twenty-one."

As stated above the orders dated May 23, 25 (Exhibit F), and August 23, 1935  (Exhibit I), which the petitioners seek to annul, were issued in civil case No. 3309 wherein Tan Chay  & Co. was plaintiff and  Juan Baldovino,  Buenaventura Alandy, Policarpo Pandy and Paciencia Edora were defendants, to require said defendants to comply  with their bond obligation under the compromise of June 14, 1930.  The petitioners, as defendants in said case prejudiced by said orders, had the right to appeal therefrom, but they did not do so.  Inasmuch as the lack of an appeal or  of another plain, speedy and adequate remedy is an indispensable requisite in order that the remedy of certiorari may be availed of against an inferior tribunal when the latter has exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion, there  being such remedy and it not having been availed of in this case, certiorari does not lie.

The second question to be decided is whether or not the Court of First Instance of Tayabas exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the order of May 25, 1935,  granting  the motion for the issuance of a deficiency judgment.

The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance  of Tayabas to try the case in which the  order of May 25, 1935, was issued, and to decide it  on the merits, is not attacked.  If the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, in the exercise of its jurisdiction,  committed an error  of law, as claimed, said error does not constitute excess of jurisdiction.   Inasmuch as the remedy of certiorari is available only in case of excess of jurisdiction and abuse  of discretion, there being no such excess of jurisdiction  or abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, the petition under consideration is without merit.

For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold:  (1)  That a deficiency judgment is final and conclusive in  character and is, therefore,  appealable; (2) that a party entitled to appeal from a  deficiency judgment, who neither excepts thereto nor appeals therefrom, cannot resort to the remedy of certiorari  to annul said  order; and (3) that a judge, who renders a deficiency judgment because of the insufficiency of the proceeds of  the property mortgaged to secure  a bond,  commits, if at all, a mere error of law which does not constitute excess of jurisdiction and, therefore,  may not  be the subject of a petition for certiorari.

Wherefore, the remedy of certiorari applied for is denied and the petition is hereby dismissed, with costs to the peti- tioners.  So ordered.

Malcolm, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.