Gonzalez v. Lazatin
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Danilo and Veronica Gonzalez filed an unlawful detainer case against Petronila Lazatin for a house and lot. The City Court of Quezon City ruled in favor of the Gonzalezes, ordering Petronila to vacate the premises and pay damages and attorney's fees. This decision became final and executory, leading to a writ of execution. 2. Procedural History: While the ejectment case was ongoing, Francis Lazatin, son of Petronila, filed a separate civil action for annulment of sale and/or reformation of instrument concerning the same property. Lazatin also attempted to intervene in the ejectment case, which was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with this Court (G.R. No. 59325), which resulted in a temporary restraining order and a preliminary mandatory order to restore Lazatin to possession. Subsequently, this Court dismissed G.R. No. 59325, lifting the restraining orders and allowing the Gonzalezes to regain possession. However, Lazatin filed an urgent ex-parte motion in his annulment case, leading the respondent trial court to issue orders on August 18 and August 23, 1982, directing the deputy sheriff to restore Lazatin to possession, despite the Gonzalezes having regained possession pursuant to this Court's dismissal of G.R. No. 59325. The petitioners, Spouses Gonzalez and Deputy Sheriff Loria, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Intermediate Appellate Court challenging these trial court orders. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek to annul the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court which dismissed their petition for certiorari and prohibition. The appellate court found that the petitioners should have awaited the trial court's resolution on their motion for reconsideration, that the impugned orders were interlocutory and not correctible by certiorari, and that any error was one of judgment. The petitioners argue that the appellate court erred in applying these general rules, as the circumstances warranted exceptions due to the urgency, the purely legal issue, and the potential for irreparable damage if the trial court's orders were enforced, which would have compelled them to yield possession despite a final and executory judgment in their favor in the ejectment case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition. Whether the trial court's orders dated August 18, 1982, and August 23, 1982, compelling the restoration of possession to respondent Francis Lazatin, should be set aside. Whether the final judgment in the ejectment case (Civil Case No. 39579) should be fully executed despite the pendency of the action for annulment of sale and/or reformation of instrument (Civil Case No. Q-33944), and the related contempt charges.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated February 15, 1983, and its resolution dated March 14, 1983, are SET ASIDE. The orders dated August 18, 1982, and August 23, 1982, in Civil Case No. Q-33944 before the respondent Regional Trial Court are SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari despite interlocutory orders and pending motion for reconsideration: The Supreme Court held that while generally certiorari will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration has been given a chance to correct errors, exceptions exist. These include situations where the issue is purely of law, public interest is involved, or there is urgency. In this case, the trial court's orders were peremptory, commanding restoration of possession within 24 hours under pain of contempt, necessitating immediate action to forestall irreparable damage. An ordinary appeal would not have been an effective remedy to prevent the immediate adverse effects of these orders. The Court reiterated that certiorari is an extraordinary writ to correct acts done without or in excess of jurisdiction, serving as a wholesome control over inferior tribunals, especially when interlocutory orders could cause irreparable damage. On the execution of the trial court's orders compelling restoration of possession: The Court found merit in the petition regarding the execution of the ejectment judgment. While the rule requires speedy execution in ejectment cases to prevent further damages to the plaintiff, this is subject to exceptions. The Court distinguished this case from Salinas v. Navarro where the ejectment judgment was still pending appeal. Here, the judgment in the ejectment case (Civil Case No. 39579) was already final and executory, with a writ of execution issued. However, the Court noted its prior finding in G.R. No. 59325 that respondent Francis X. Lazatin was not a resident nor occupant of the property at the time of the ejectment case filing or judgment. This finding, coupled with the pendency of the annulment case, presented equitable considerations. The Court found the case for immediate execution weaker than in Salinas v. Navarro and that equitable considerations favored the petitioners, especially since the deputy sheriff's action to restore possession to the spouses Gonzalez was pursuant to a writ of execution and the dismissal of Lazatin's petition in G.R. No. 59325. On the execution of the ejectment judgment pending the annulment case and the contempt charges: Considering the foregoing, the Supreme Court found no merit in the motion to cite the petitioners and their counsel for contempt of court, as their actions were in line with the writ of execution and the Court's resolution in G.R. No. 59325.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is proper to question interlocutory orders of a trial court when immediate action is urgently needed to forestall imminent adverse effects, even if a motion for reconsideration has not yet been resolved, especially when an ordinary appeal would not be an effective measure.