Collado v. Hernando
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership over a residential land, claiming ownership by purchase from Bonifacia Collada in 1952 and continuous possession until November 1975. Private respondents claimed the land belonged to Maria Barreras, who sold it in 1942 to respondents-spouses Brillantes, who possessed it until selling it to spouses Go in November 1975. Procedural History: Following a pre-trial conference, the respondent judge issued a pre-trial order dated March 17, 1976, giving parties 15 days to submit documentary evidence and then closing the pre-trial, considering the case submitted for decision based on the parties' agreement through their counsels. The parties agreed on certain undisputed facts, including the property's location and approximate area, and attorney's fees. The court also inquired about the intended oral evidence, with counsels for both sides outlining their respective claims regarding ownership and possession. On April 21, 1976, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint without a trial on the merits, based on documentary evidence for marking and counsel's manifestations. Petitioners' motion for modification and to set aside the judgment was denied, as was their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the pre-trial order and the decision, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. The Supreme Court noted that petitioners failed to disclose that they had already filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 59738-R), which was pending.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the pre-trial order and rendering judgment without a trial on the merits. Whether the writ of certiorari should issue despite the pendency of an appeal in the Court of Appeals. Whether the petitioners engaged in forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The pre-trial order and decision of the respondent judge are not annulled, but the writ of certiorari is denied. Counsel for petitioners is admonished for forum shopping and warned of more severe action for future misconduct. The respondent judge is reminded to comply faithfully with the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals is directed to proceed with the appeal with deliberate dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedure followed by the respondent judge: The Court acknowledged that the procedure followed by the respondent judge was irregular and not in accordance with the Rules of Court. Specifically, Section 2 of Rule 30 requires that if parties can agree only on some facts, a trial must be held on the others. The respondent judge rendered a decision based on documentary evidence submitted for marking and counsel's manifestations regarding intended oral evidence, without a formal trial on the disputed facts. The exhibits were not formally offered or admitted, rendering them inadmissible. The Court reiterated its observation that rendering judgment based on mere representations of what parties intend to prove, without actual presentation of oral evidence, is improper, especially when factual theories contradict each other. On the propriety of certiorari despite an available appeal: The Court held that a writ of certiorari is not proper when there is an available plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the petitioners had already filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The existence of this appeal rendered the remedy of certiorari unavailable, as the "emergency requisite" for its issuance was absent. The Court emphasized that the remedy of appeal is the appropriate recourse when a party believes a lower court committed an error in its proceedings or judgment. The petitioners' failure to disclose the pending appeal was also noted as a serious omission. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court found that the petitioners engaged in forum shopping by filing the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court while their appeal was already pending before the Court of Appeals. This action constituted an attempt to obtain a favorable ruling from multiple forums simultaneously. The Court unequivocally stated that it "definitely cannot and will not countenance" forum shopping. The petitioners' attempt to justify their action by claiming the appeal was far from termination and that the certiorari would render it moot was rejected. This conduct was deemed to aggravate their case and showed a disregard for the judicial process.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari will not issue if an appeal, a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, is available. Furthermore, a case should not be submitted for decision based solely on representations of counsel regarding intended oral evidence without actual presentation, especially when factual theories contradict each other. Forum shopping is strictly prohibited.