Spouses Lansang, Jr. v. Court Of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from an action for damages filed by private respondent Renato Salangsang against petitioners Spouses Jose R. Lansang, Jr. and Elsie D. Lansang and Roberto Co, stemming from a vehicular accident. Petitioners subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Interworld Assurance Corp. The initial claim for P30,000.00 escalated significantly due to subsequent court actions and rulings. 2. Procedural History: Following a pre-trial and the presentation of evidence by the plaintiff, the trial court reset the hearing to November 8, 1984. Neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared on this date, leading the court to deem the case submitted for resolution. Despite petitioners' explanation for their absence, the trial court rendered a judgment on December 8, 1984, awarding substantial damages. A motion for reconsideration and to set aside the decision, which also sought to present evidence, was denied on March 11, 1985. Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal and/or certiorari. The trial court approved the appeal and forwarded the records. Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. An execution of the trial court's judgment was granted, and a subsequent petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by petitioners in the Court of Appeals was also dismissed, as was their motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decisions. They raise two main issues: (1) whether an appeal is inconsistent with the remedy of certiorari, and (2) whether their appeal was abandoned by filing a petition for certiorari against the order denying their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners argue that the appeal was not an adequate remedy due to the daily penalty imposed and that the denial of their motion for new trial, which was based on excusable absence, was erroneous, particularly given the potentially unconscionable damages awarded.
Issue(s)
Whether appeal is inconsistent with the remedy of certiorari. Whether the appeal taken by the petitioners was deemed abandoned when they filed a petition for certiorari contesting the order denying their motion for reconsideration and to allow them to present evidence, which in effect was for a new trial.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 30, 1986, and its resolution dated September 17, 1986, as well as the decision of the trial court dated December 8, 1984, the order of execution dated July 6, 1985, and the order dated July 18, 1985, are set aside. A new judgment is rendered granting the motion for new trial. The records are returned to the lower court for further proceedings, giving petitioners their day in court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that appeal and certiorari are not remedies that exclude each other. While certiorari may not be used as a substitute for a lost appeal or when appeal is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, it can prosper when the appeal does not appear to be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, especially concerning incidents during the pendency of a case or after judgment. The purpose of appeal is to review a final judgment or order, while certiorari corrects acts performed without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, where no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists. The availability of an ordinary appeal does not preclude certiorari if the appeal is not adequate or equally beneficial, speedy, and sufficient. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the appeal was not abandoned by the filing of the petition for certiorari. The Court emphasized that certiorari may be instituted during the pendency of a case or even after judgment. In this instance, the petition for certiorari related to the denial of a motion for reconsideration, which was in effect a motion for a new trial. The Court found the petitioners' explanation for their absence at the hearing to be excusable, considering the circumstances. The Court reiterated that procedural rules should be liberally applied in the interest of justice, especially when a party is denied their day in court. The Court noted that the daily penalty of P250.00, coupled with other damages, made the appeal an inadequate remedy due to the potential for escalating costs, thus justifying the resort to certiorari.
Main Doctrine
Appeal and certiorari are not mutually exclusive remedies and a petition for certiorari may be filed even after an appeal has been perfected, provided that the appeal is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The liberal application of procedural rules is favored in the interest of justice.