Gelindon v. De La Rama
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a complaint for forcible entry filed by Real Estate Investors, Inc. against forty-eight petitioners. The private respondent sought to recover possession of certain premises, alleging unlawful entry by the petitioners. The case originated in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Parañaque. 2. Procedural History: The private respondent filed its complaint for forcible entry on July 10, 1989. After various preliminary filings, including answers and motions, the MTC initially treated the case under summary procedure but later deemed it to fall under regular procedure due to the complexity of defenses. An amended complaint was filed and admitted. Following the petitioners' failure to file an answer to the amended complaint, the MTC considered the case submitted for decision. A petition for certiorari filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to annul MTC orders was dismissed. Subsequently, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of the private respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay damages. The petitioners filed a notice of appeal from this decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the MTC's decision and various prior orders. They raised issues concerning the procedural classification of the case (summary vs. regular procedure), the admissibility of an amended complaint, and the consolidation of numerous defendants. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the issues raised were matters properly addressed by an appeal, which the petitioners had already timely filed. The Court emphasized that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and direct resort to the Supreme Court is generally discouraged when other adequate remedies, such as appeal, are available.
Issue(s)
Whether a case being tried under summary procedure and submitted for decision after the parties filed their position papers can be changed to regular procedure; and whether a case originally tried under summary procedure and changed to regular procedure can be restored to summary procedure after prohibited pleadings were filed and admitted. Whether an amended complaint which included an additional lot and did not reproduce the original complaint is admissible. Whether 48 defendants who had separate houses can be consolidated in one complaint. On the propriety of the petition for certiorari and direct resort to the Supreme Court: Whether the petition for certiorari was proper given the availability of appeal, and whether direct resort to the Supreme Court was warranted.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the prayer for temporary restraining order is denied. The case is remanded to the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 78, to allow the timely appeal of the petitioners to take its ordinary course in law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the change from summary to regular procedure and restoration to summary procedure: While the Court did not directly rule on the merits of the procedural issues (change from summary to regular procedure, admissibility of amended complaint, consolidation of defendants), it implicitly found them to be matters reviewable through an ordinary appeal rather than a special civil action for certiorari. The existence of a pending appeal rendered the petition for certiorari inappropriate. The Court's primary reason for dismissal was the availability of the remedy of appeal, which petitioners had already availed of. On the admissibility of the amended complaint: While the Court did not directly rule on the merits of the procedural issues (change from summary to regular procedure, admissibility of amended complaint, consolidation of defendants), it implicitly found them to be matters reviewable through an ordinary appeal rather than a special civil action for certiorari. The existence of a pending appeal rendered the petition for certiorari inappropriate. The Court's primary reason for dismissal was the availability of the remedy of appeal, which petitioners had already availed of. On the consolidation of defendants: While the Court did not directly rule on the merits of the procedural issues (change from summary to regular procedure, admissibility of amended complaint, consolidation of defendants), it implicitly found them to be matters reviewable through an ordinary appeal rather than a special civil action for certiorari. The existence of a pending appeal rendered the petition for certiorari inappropriate. The Court's primary reason for dismissal was the availability of the remedy of appeal, which petitioners had already availed of. On the propriety of the petition for certiorari and direct resort to the Supreme Court: The Court reiterated that the indispensable elements of a petition for certiorari are: (a) that it is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions; (b) that such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (c) that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court emphasized that for the extraordinary writ to issue, it must be clearly established that there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. All remedies available in the trial court must first be exhausted before resorting to certiorari. In this case, the petitioners had a timely notice of appeal, which is considered an adequate remedy and a bar to the present petition. The questions raised were issues clearly within the normal precincts of an appeal. The Court stressed the policy against direct resort to the Supreme Court for extraordinary writs when such relief can be obtained from the Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts. Citing Vergara, Sr. vs. Suelto, the Court stated that the Supreme Court, as a court of last resort, should not be burdened with dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is within the competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writ's procurement must be presented. This policy must be strictly observed by courts and lawyers.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not prosper if an appeal is available and is an adequate remedy. Direct resort to the Supreme Court for extraordinary writs is generally discouraged when lower courts (RTC or CA) can provide the same relief, as a matter of policy to allow the Supreme Court to function as a court of last resort.