Giron v. Caluag
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns three separate civil actions (Q-4560, Q-4413, and Q-4412) initiated by J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. against Rodolfo Giron, Miguel Balance, and Maxima Vda. de Antisoda, respectively. The plaintiff sought to recover possession of small parcels of land, each ranging from 200 to 500 square meters, which were allegedly occupied illegally by the defendants. These parcels were claimed to be part of the Santa Mesa Heights Subdivision in Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267 in the name of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. 2. Procedural History: In the lower court, the defendants (petitioners herein) alleged that the respondent judges improperly delegated the reception of evidence to commissioners who did not take the required oath and proceeded without a formal order of reference or submitting a report. Despite these alleged procedural defects, decisions were rendered, and writs of execution were issued, leading to motions for demolition of the petitioners' structures. Petitioners Maxima Vda. de Antisoda and Miguel Balance subsequently filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. Nos. 29385-R and 29489-R, respectively), challenging the decisions and execution orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed these petitions, finding no merit in the claims of procedural irregularities and noting that the amended records on appeal were filed out of time. The appellate court also ruled that the expropriation proceedings claimed by the petitioners did not apply or had not been initiated. 3. The Petition: The petitioners have brought an original action for certiorari before this Court, seeking to nullify the proceedings, decisions, and writs of execution in the three lower court cases. They contend that the respondent judges committed grave abuse of discretion by violating procedural rules, specifically regarding the delegation of evidence reception to commissioners who allegedly failed to take their oath and submit reports, and by rendering decisions without proper notice or hearing on such reports. Petitioners pray for the annulment of all proceedings and, alternatively, for a preliminary injunction to halt further actions, including demolition orders, pending the resolution of this case. The respondents, in their answer, deny the alleged irregularities and raise defenses of res judicata and acquiescence, arguing that the petitioners had adequate remedies at law, such as appeal, which they failed to pursue in a timely manner.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judges committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in delegating the reception of evidence to commissioners without proper orders, oaths, reports, or hearings. Whether the decisions and writs of execution in Civil Cases Nos. Q-4560, Q-4413, and Q-4412 are null and void. Whether the petitions filed by petitioners Antisoda and Balance with the Court of Appeals were correctly dismissed. Whether the cause of action concerning cases Nos. Q-4412 and Q-4413 is barred by res judicata. Whether petitioner Giron is barred from assailing the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-4560 due to his failure to appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decisions and writs of execution in the said cases are upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged irregularities in the reception of evidence by commissioners: The Court of Appeals, in dismissing the petitions of Antisoda and Balance, found that the records on appeal admitted that "after due hearing wherein the parties entered into a stipulation of facts and introduced oral and documentary evidence, a decision was rendered by this Honorable Court." This admission refuted the bare allegations of the petitioners that the proceedings were irregular. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed was upheld in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, even if there were procedural errors, such as lack of notice or hearing on a commissioner's report, these could be grounds for appeal, not certiorari, especially when the lower court considered the report and the parties did not raise the issue promptly. On the timeliness of the appeals and the effect of expropriation proceedings: The Court of Appeals correctly found that the amended records on appeal of Antisoda and Balance were filed beyond the reglementary period. The claim regarding expropriation proceedings under Republic Act No. 2616 was also found to be unsubstantiated or inapplicable to the lot occupied by Antisoda. Consequently, the dismissal of their petitions by the Court of Appeals was proper. On the issue of res judicata concerning cases Nos. Q-4412 and Q-4413: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the subject matter, parties, and cause of action in the petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. Nos. 29385-R and 29489-R) were identical to the present case concerning these two civil actions. Since the Court of Appeals had rendered final and executory decisions in those cases, the claims of petitioners Antisoda and Balance regarding these cases were barred by res judicata. On petitioner Giron's failure to appeal Civil Case No. Q-4560: The Court noted that petitioner Giron did not appeal the decision rendered against him in Civil Case No. Q-4560, which had become final and executory. The jurisdiction of the lower court over the parties and the subject matter was not disputed. If there were irregularities affecting his substantial rights, Giron had a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy by seeking reconsideration and, if denied, by appealing. His failure to do so meant he could not avail himself of the writ of certiorari after the decision had become final. The Court also observed that the record suggested Giron had no meritorious defense and was not denied the opportunity to present evidence. On the overall availability of certiorari: The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that lies only when there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for an appeal. In all three cases, the petitioners either failed to avail themselves of the remedy of appeal or their appeals were dismissed on procedural grounds. The alleged irregularities, if any, were either not sufficiently proven or could have been raised and corrected through ordinary legal remedies. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was not the proper recourse.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment or irregularities that could have been corrected by appeal or reconsideration, especially when the decision has become final and executory due to the party's inaction.