Caminong v. Ubay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jovita D. Punzalan filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 6676) against Catalino Caminong and three others before the Caloocan City Court. The City Court rendered a judgment in favor of Punzalan, ordering the defendants to vacate the premises, pay monthly rentals, attorney's fees, and costs. Catalino Caminong did not appeal this judgment. Procedural History: A writ of execution and an order of demolition were issued in Civil Case No. 6676. Caminong filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. C-2005) with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, seeking to annul the writ of execution, alleging lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the City Court. The CFI dismissed this petition, and no appeal was filed. Subsequently, the Citizens Bank and Trust Co., as receiver in another case (Civil Case No. C-424), filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession of the disputed land against Jovita Punzalan (Civil Case No. C-2837). Thereafter, Caminong filed another complaint with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. C-2878) with the CFI of Rizal, seeking to restrain the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 6676, claiming he had paid a deposit to Citizens Bank to purchase the portion he occupied. The CFI dismissed this complaint, finding no valid cause of action as the lots involved in the two cases were different. No appeal was filed. On November 3, 1973, Caminong filed yet another complaint with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. C-3011) with the CFI of Rizal, again seeking to restrain the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 6676, alleging a change in the situation of the parties due to his acquisition of the land from Citizens Bank. The CFI dismissed this complaint on November 28, 1973. The Petition: Catalino Caminong filed the instant petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul and set aside the November 28, 1973 order of the respondent Judge of the CFI of Rizal, which dismissed his complaint in Civil Case No. C-3011. Caminong argued that the dismissal was erroneous and that the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 6676 should be restrained due to a change in the situation of the parties.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Civil Case No. C-3011, which sought to restrain the execution of a final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 6676. Whether the petitioner's claim of having acquired the land from Citizens Bank justified a restraint on the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 6676.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The temporary restraining order previously issued is lifted and set aside. Costs are against the petitioner. The Court affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. C-3011, holding that the judgment in Civil Case No. 6676 had long become final and executory, and the petitioner's claims had been raised and resolved in previous proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the respondent Judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. C-3011. The petition for certiorari was filed to annul an order dismissing a complaint that sought to restrain the execution of a judgment that had already become final and executory. The petitioner had previously challenged the legality of the execution orders twice before in Civil Case Nos. C-2005 and C-2878, and these challenges were found to be without merit. The Supreme Court reiterated that certiorari is not a substitute for appeal and cannot be used to reopen issues already passed upon or that could have been raised in prior proceedings. The repeated filing of similar complaints indicated a disregard for the finality of judgments and the principle of res judicata. On Issue 2: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that his alleged acquisition of the land from Citizens Bank justified restraining the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 6676. This claim had already been raised and decided against the petitioner in Civil Case No. C-2878, where the court found that the land involved in Civil Case No. 6676 (Lot 195-C) was different from the lots litigated in the case between Citizens Bank and Jovita Punzalan (Lots 194-A and 195-B). Furthermore, the complaint filed by Citizens Bank against Jovita Punzalan in Civil Case No. C-2837 had already been dismissed and affirmed on appeal. Since the petitioner's claim was contingent upon the outcome of that litigation, and it was decided adversely to Citizens Bank and in favor of Punzalan, there was no longer any obstacle to the enforcement of the final judgment in Civil Case No. 6676.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is immutable and can no longer be altered or modified. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a remedy of last resort, available only when there is no appeal, or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and it is invoked to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not to correct errors of judgment.