Balbalio v. Heirs of Galaban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a civil case, Civil Case No. U-492, filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan between Acay Balbalio, et al. and the Heirs of the deceased spouses Ignacio B. Galaban and Magdalena Bautista. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance rendered judgment on November 28, 1962. Subsequently, the heirs of the deceased spouses filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal on January 3, 1963, followed by an appeal bond on January 4, 1963. The petitioners, Acay Balbalio, et al., moved to dismiss this appeal, asserting the appeal bond was filed late. The trial court denied this motion on March 14, 1963, and later denied a motion for reconsideration on June 21, 1963, ordering the records to be forwarded to the Appellate Court. The Petition: Acay Balbalio and Polito Lic-cano filed the instant special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court on July 3, 1963, to challenge the orders of the Court of First Instance that denied their motion to dismiss the appeal. They contended they had no plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. However, the Supreme Court found that a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy existed through a motion to dismiss the appeal in the appellate court, as per the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners have a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. Whether the special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied without costs. The Court held that petitioners have a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether petitioners have a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law: The Court held that petitioners do have such a remedy. The Rules of Court provide that appellees may file a motion to dismiss the appeal in the appellate court on the ground of the appellants' failure to file the appeal bond within the prescribed time. This remedy is available even if a similar motion was previously filed and denied by the trial court. The appellate court can grant such a motion, thereby reversing the trial court's action if the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. Therefore, the existence of this remedy precludes the use of certiorari. On Whether the special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy: The Court ruled that certiorari is not the proper remedy when a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy is available in the ordinary course of law. Section 1 of Rule 67 (now Section 1 of Rule 65) of the Rules of Court explicitly states that certiorari may be availed of only when there is no other plain, adequate, and speedy remedy. Since the petitioners could file a motion to dismiss the appeal in the appellate court, they failed to meet the requirement for availing of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. The Court emphasized that the denial of the motion to dismiss by the trial court does not prevent the movants from reiterating the same in the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari will not prosper if there is a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as the filing of a motion to dismiss the appeal in the appellate court.