Philippine Banking Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philippine Banking Corporation (PBC) filed a complaint for a sum of money against private respondents Pennell Commercial Co., Inc. and spouses Alfredo and Zenaida Gloria, seeking payment of P3,290,000.00 based on promissory notes and a continuing surety agreement. PBC also prayed for a preliminary attachment. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Roque A. Tamayo issued a writ of preliminary attachment. Private respondents filed motions for extension of time to file an answer, a motion to discharge the attachment, and a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action. PBC opposed the motion to dismiss and moved to declare defendants in default. On August 12, 1983, the RTC dismissed the complaint, discharged the writ of attachment, and denied PBC's motion for reconsideration. PBC then filed an Urgent Motion to Admit Amended Complaint, which was opposed by private respondents. The RTC did not resolve this motion. PBC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC's dismissal order and the denial of its motion for reconsideration, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed PBC's petition for certiorari, ruling that ordinary appeal was the proper remedy and that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. PBC then filed the present petition for review by way of certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint and discharging the writ of attachment. Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to resolve the motion to admit amended complaint.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy when the remedy of ordinary appeal is available. The order of the respondent Judge dismissing the complaint was a final disposition of the case, and the availability of an ordinary appeal barred the filing of a petition for certiorari. The Court reiterated that the office of the writ of certiorari is limited to the correction of defects of jurisdiction and cannot be used to correct errors of judgment or to review the wisdom or legal soundness of a decision. On grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judge in dismissing the complaint. The respondent Judge correctly noted that the complaint did not allege that the promissory notes had become due and payable, either by their stated due dates or by reason of default in installment payments, which would have triggered an acceleration clause. Mere demand for payment of an obligation not yet due does not constitute a cause of action. The Court agreed with the CA that the respondent Judge's exercise of discretion was not capricious or whimsical. On grave abuse of discretion in failing to resolve the motion to admit amended complaint: The Court ruled that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in failing to act on the motion to admit amended complaint. The motion was filed after the original complaint had already been dismissed by the RTC. An amended complaint cannot be admitted when the original complaint no longer exists, as it has lost its standing. Furthermore, allowing an amendment at that stage would prejudice the private respondents, as it has been ruled that amendments will not be allowed if they prejudice the adverse party. The Court also cited the principle that liberality in allowing amendments decreases as the case progresses.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail an order dismissing a complaint when the remedy of ordinary appeal is available. Furthermore, an amended complaint cannot be admitted after the original complaint has already been dismissed, as there is no longer a complaint to amend, and such amendment would prejudice the adverse party.