D. D. Comendador Construction Corporation v. Sayo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner D.D. Comendador Construction Corporation (Comendador) purchased construction materials and equipment from private respondent Kho Eng Poe (Poe) from October 1977 to July 6, 1978, with a total value of P108,799.54. The only payment made was a post-dated check for P24,455.00, which was dishonored upon presentment. Procedural History: Poe filed a civil case against Comendador. The court issued a writ of preliminary attachment, levying upon Comendador's construction equipment. Poe filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Judgment on the Pleadings. Comendador opposed the motion. The trial court granted the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in an Order dated March 3, 1981. Comendador filed a Motion to Reset Hearing, which was granted for April 27, 1981. Comendador failed to appear on April 27, 1981, and the case was submitted for decision. A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Comendador was denied in an Order dated June 19, 1981. On July 7, 1981, the trial court rendered a Decision ordering Comendador to pay Poe P108,799.54 with interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Comendador appealed this Decision to the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Comendador filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Injunction with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the trial court's orders dated March 3, 1981, and June 19, 1981, alleging they were issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. Comendador contended that the order granting the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was irregular because its Answer raised a genuine issue regarding the understanding that payment was dependent on government releases.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a petition for certiorari and prohibition despite the pendency of an appeal from the main judgment. Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated March 3, 1981, and June 19, 1981. Whether the respondent Judge erred in rendering a judgment on the pleadings.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The judgment rendered by the respondent Court in Civil Case No. C-8242 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari and prohibition despite appeal: The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are not available when there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as appeal. While an exception exists if appeal would be inadequate, slow, or insufficient, the circumstances in this case do not justify such an exception. The petition was filed against interlocutory orders before judgment, but after a judgment was rendered and appealed, the proceeding against the interlocutory orders may no longer be entertained. The validity of the questioned orders should be raised in the appeal from the main judgment. The petitioner's claim that the preliminary attachment rendered the remedy of appeal inadequate was not sufficiently substantiated, especially considering the admitted fact that the attached properties were taken by virtue of a prior writ of attachment in another case and sold at public auction. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders: The Court found no necessity to inquire into the conflicting allegations regarding notice of the orders. The petitioner had filed a written opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, thus it was not denied a chance to object. If the questioned orders suffered from any legal or jurisdictional infirmity, the objection is foreclosed by the supervention of the judgment on the main case and the subsequent appeal. The question of the validity of these orders can and should be properly raised in the appeal. On the propriety of rendering a judgment on the pleadings: The Court found sufficient basis to rule on the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings. The complaint alleged the sale of construction supplies and equipment with a total value of P108,799.54, with a 30-day payment period and interest on overdue accounts. The petitioner admitted the genuineness and due execution of the documents evidencing the transactions. The petitioner's sole defense was an alleged understanding that payment was dependent on government releases. This defense was belied by the issuance of a post-dated check for payment, which affirmed the 30-day payment term and contradicted the claim that payment was contingent on future government releases. Therefore, the pleadings did not raise any genuine issue necessitating a hearing, and a judgment on the pleadings was proper. The petitioner was not denied its day in court as it had filed a formal written opposition.
Main Doctrine
The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are not available where the petitioner has the remedy of appeal or some other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. While an exception exists when appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the order complained of, the circumstances in this case did not justify the invocation of the exception, especially after a judgment on the main case had been rendered and appealed.