Santos v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ofrecino T. Santos filed an action for recovery of P1,628 against Teodulo M. Cruz and Valentin C. Garcia (Civil Case No. 241). He secured a writ of preliminary attachment levied on a tractor he believed belonged to the defendants, but which was owned by respondent Philippine Reconstruction Corporation, Inc. (PRC). PRC filed a third-party claim. Petitioner amended his complaint to include PRC as a defendant. However, Civil Case No. 241 was dismissed by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cotabato for lack of jurisdiction, as the amount involved was less than P2,000. Petitioner filed a similar action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Buayan, Cotabato, against PRC, and was awarded P1,638.10, but this decision is under certiorari. Procedural History: PRC filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 13778) in the CFI of Manila against petitioner for damages resulting from the levy on its tractor. Petitioner's motion to dismiss was deemed invalid by the Manila CFI for lack of notice of hearing. Petitioner was declared in default. A motion for relief from default was filed by petitioner. The CFI of Manila proceeded to set the case for hearing, received plaintiff's evidence, and rendered a decision in favor of PRC, ordering petitioner to pay P4,500 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent court in declaring him in default, deeming his motion to dismiss invalid, and proceeding to judgment without acting on his petition for relief. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the CFI of Manila, arguing that the CFI of Cotabato had exclusive jurisdiction, and that the cause of action was barred by the decision in the Justice of the Peace Court case.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari was proper despite the availability of an appeal. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over an independent action for damages arising from a writ of attachment issued by a different court in a case that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition for certiorari. The Court held that certiorari will not lie when the remedy of appeal is available. The petitioner failed to appeal the decision on the merits rendered by the CFI of Manila, despite being duly notified, and thus lost the opportunity to raise issues of default, the disposition of his petition for relief, and jurisdiction on appeal. The Court also found that the CFI of Manila correctly took cognizance of Civil Case No. 13778, as the damages sought by PRC were not for a wrongful issuance of the writ of attachment in Civil Case No. 241, but for the levy on its property by petitioner, who was not a party to the original case. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 241 for lack of jurisdiction prevented the presentation of a damages claim therein, thus distinguishing the cited case of Cruz vs. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that certiorari is not the appropriate remedy when the remedy of appeal is available. The petitioner was duly notified of the CFI Manila's decision on the merits and had the opportunity to appeal, during which he could have challenged the propriety of the default order and the ruling on his motion to dismiss. Under the Rules of Court, the failure of a party to avail of the right to appeal precludes the subsequent use of certiorari to correct alleged errors of the trial court. The Court emphasized that it is elementary that certiorari will not lie where the remedy of appeal is available, as it is not a substitute for a lost or neglected appeal. Even if the petitioner believed his motion to dismiss was validly filed, the remedy to correct the trial court's contrary ruling was to appeal the final judgment. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the CFI Manila correctly exercised jurisdiction over the independent action for damages. The Court distinguished the ruling in Cruz v. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc., which generally requires damage claims from attachment to be filed in the same action to avoid multiplicity of suits. This exclusivity rule is inapplicable here because the CFI Cotabato, having dismissed the original case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, was legally incapable of rendering a final judgment that could include an assessment of damages. Furthermore, the respondent corporation was not an original party to the Cotabato suit when its property was seized, and the seizure was based on a writ issued against other defendants. Avoidance of multiplicity of suits presupposes that the first court is competent to resolve the entire controversy, which was not the case for the CFI Cotabato.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari will not lie where the remedy of appeal is available. A party who fails to appeal a decision on the merits, despite proper notice, cannot resort to certiorari to question procedural rulings or jurisdictional issues that could have been raised on appeal. Furthermore, a separate action for damages arising from a wrongful attachment may be permissible if the original case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, preventing the presentation of a claim for damages therein.