Velasco v. Segundo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner's husband died while riding a motorized tricycle owned and operated by the private respondent. The tricycle was bumped by a truck on a public highway in Villasis, Pangasinan, on December 19, 1972. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of damages on April 10, 1980. The private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, sustained this contention in an Order dated September 29, 1980, dismissing the case. The judge reasoned that the action, being based on quasi-delict, prescribed in four (4) years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, and the complaint was filed more than seven (7) years after the incident. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 17, 1981, seeking to annul the dismissal order. She alleged that the order was void because the proper prescriptive period should be ten (10) years, as the action was based on a contract of carriage, not quasi-delict. Petitioner also claimed the respondent judge showed partiality by calling the case one of pure harassment and exhibiting a "too friendly alliance with defendant's counsel."
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the order of dismissal. Whether the action for damages prescribed within four (4) years or ten (10) years.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The order of dismissal is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the order of dismissal: The Court held that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The order of dismissal issued by the respondent Judge was an appealable order. The petitioner failed to file an appeal and instead resorted to a petition for certiorari. No justifiable reason was provided for this procedural deviation. Furthermore, the petition was filed almost one (1) year after the issuance of the order of dismissal, which is not considered a reasonable time even for certiorari when it is allowed as a substitute for appeal. The alleged error in the order was one of judgment, not a jurisdictional error, which is not correctible by certiorari. The Court reiterated that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and only when the lower tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. On Whether the action for damages prescribed within four (4) years or ten (10) years: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that the action was based on a contract of carriage and thus subject to a ten-year prescriptive period. The facts presented indicated that the death of the petitioner's husband occurred due to a vehicular accident where the tricycle was bumped by a truck. This scenario clearly falls under the ambit of quasi-delict, which is governed by Article 1146 of the Civil Code. Article 1146 provides that actions based on quasi-delict must be commenced within four (4) years from the time the cause of action accrued. Since the incident occurred on December 19, 1972, and the complaint was filed on April 10, 1980, more than seven (7) years later, the action had clearly prescribed. The Court did not find any basis to consider the action as one arising from a contract of carriage.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The remedy of certiorari is extraordinary and is only available when the lower court or quasi-judicial body has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the order of dismissal was appealable, and the petitioner failed to show any justifiable reason for not filing an appeal and instead resorting to certiorari, especially considering the undue delay in filing the petition.