De Castro v. Delta Motor Sales Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Delta Motor Sales Corporation (Delta Motor) sued Doctor Socorro G. de Castro in the municipal court of Makati for the recovery of an unpaid balance for a car. Doctor De Castro, believing the action to be unfounded and malicious due to an alleged overpayment, filed a separate action in Sorsogon, her home province, claiming moral and actual damages from Delta Motor, alleging that the Makati suit exposed her to ridicule and constrained her to withdraw her Congressional candidacy. Procedural History: Delta Motor filed a motion to dismiss in the Sorsogon court on the grounds of improper venue, pendency of another action, and lack of legal capacity to sue. This motion initially lacked a proper notice of hearing. After a hearing at the trial court's instance, the motion was denied for being defective. Delta Motor refiled the motion with a proper notice of hearing. Doctor De Castro opposed the refiled motion and prayed that Delta Motor be declared in default. The trial court, in an order dated December 6, 1971, refused to declare Delta Motor in default, reasoning that allowing the refiling of the motion to dismiss extended the period for filing an answer, citing a flexible attitude in favor of the defendant. The court deferred resolution of the motion to dismiss as the grounds were not indubitable. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Doctor De Castro filed a special civil action of certiorari to review the interlocutory order denying her motion to declare Delta Motor in default.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in refusing to declare the private respondent in default and allowing the refiling of a motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The respondent Judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petition failed to raise any genuine jurisdictional issue as certiorari is intended solely for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Applying the ruling in Herrera v. Barretto, the Court emphasized that the writ is an extraordinary remedy to be used only when a court's action is void or to avoid manifest injustice. In this instance, the respondent Judge did not act capriciously or whimsically in allowing Delta Motor to refile its motion to dismiss. The Court cited Naga Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, noting that trial courts may adopt a 'basically flexible attitude' regarding procedural technicalities to favor the resolution of cases on their merits. Furthermore, any error regarding the refusal to declare a party in default is an interlocutory matter that can be addressed in an appeal from the final decision rather than through a separate certiorari proceeding. As established in Espiritu v. Solidum, allowing certiorari for every interlocutory error would lead to intolerable delays and clogged dockets.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. It is only to avoid truly extraordinary cases where the action of the inferior court is wholly void, or where further steps would result in a waste of time and money, that a writ of certiorari is issuable. Errors imputable to the trial court in not declaring a party in default can be reviewed in an appeal from the final decision on the merits of the case.