MADRIGAL TRANSPORT VS LAPANDAY HOLDINGS FACTS: Petitioner Madrigal Transport, Inc filed a petition for Voluntary Insolvency before the Regional Trial Court Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Lapanday Holdings The insolvency court (RTC) declared petitioner insolvent Lapanday filed a Motion to Dismiss the case pending before the RTC which was granted for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was later denied Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals The CA issued a resolution requiring petitioner to explain why its petition should not be dismissed outright, on the ground that the questioned orders should have been elevated by ordinary appeal The appellate court ruled that the main issue in the instant case was purely legal, the petition could be treated as one for review as an exception to the general rule that certiorari was not proper when appeal was available. Lapanday challenged the ruling The CA issued a a decision dismissing Madrigal’s petition for certiorari stating that an order granting a motion to dismiss was final and thus the proper subject of an appeal, not certiorari Furthermore, even if the petition could be treated as an appeal, it would still have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the issues raised by petitioner involved pure questions of law that should be brought to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 50 and Section 2 ( c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
-
ISSUES: I Whether or not Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy II Whether or not CA had no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition for Certiorari HELD: I.
Appeal is the proper remedy and not a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
Under Rule 41, Rules of Court, an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by the Rules of Court to be appealable. Included in the modes of appeal are ordinary appeal, petition for review, and appeal by certiorari. An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. An interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely, but leaves something to be done as regards the merits of the latter.
FACTOR, J.V.B. Remedial Law Review I Judge Eleuterio Bathan
1
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. The requisites of certiorari are: 1. the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; 2. Such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and 3. There is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one’s own negligence or error in one’s choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there can be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. II.
The Supreme Court has the proper jurisdiction
Petitioner was ascribing error of judgment, not jurisdiction, in its Petitioner for Certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals. The issue there was the trial court’s alleged error in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action. As petitioner was challenging the trial court’s interpretation of the law – posing a question of law – the issue involved an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction. An error of judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not necessarily equivalent to “grave abuse of discretion.” An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final order. It is not interlocutory because the proceedings are terminated and leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. Therefore, the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order. The provision is clear. Dismissals on the aforesaid grounds constitute res judicata. However, such dismissals are still subject to a timely appeal. For those based on other grounds, the complaint can be refilled. Secion 5, therefore, confirms that an appeal is the remedy for the dismissal of an action. Even assuming that the Order of the RTC was erroneous, its error did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. As previously stressed, appeal – not certiorari – was the correct remedy to elevate the RTC’s order granting the Motion to Dismiss. The appeal, which would have involved a pure question of law, should have been filed with the Supreme Court pursuant ot Section 2 ( c) of Rule 41 and Section 2 of Rule 50.
FACTOR, J.V.B. Remedial Law Review I Judge Eleuterio Bathan
2
