La Tondeña Distillers v. Ponferrada
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondents filed an action for specific performance with damages against defendants, alleging a breach of contract. A notice of lis pendens was annotated on the defendants' property title. Petitioner subsequently purchased the lot from the defendants. 2. Procedural History: Private respondents amended their complaint to implead petitioner as a defendant, alleging petitioner was not a buyer in good faith. Petitioner moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing it was a buyer in good faith due to the cancellation of the lis pendens and improper venue. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to dismiss and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's denial of its motion to dismiss. Petitioner argued that the denial constituted grave abuse of discretion and that venue was improperly laid. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner later sold the lot, raising questions about its standing, and ultimately dismissed the petition for being filed beyond the reasonable period and for failing to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the reasonable period. Whether an order denying a motion to dismiss is appealable or assailable via certiorari. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. Whether venue was improperly laid before the RTC of Bacolod City.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The petition for certiorari was filed more than three months after petitioner received the assailed RTC resolutions. This period is considered beyond the reasonable period for filing such an extraordinary remedy, warranting outright dismissal. On the nature of an order denying a motion to dismiss: An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. It is not appealable until a final judgment is rendered. Generally, it cannot be assailed through a petition for certiorari. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file an answer, interpose the objections raised in the motion to dismiss as defenses, proceed to trial, and, if an adverse decision is rendered, elevate the entire case by appeal. On grave abuse of discretion: The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is available only when the denial of the motion to dismiss constitutes grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the RTC did not abuse its discretion in deferring action on the motion to dismiss. Section 3 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court allows deferment of the hearing on a motion to dismiss until the trial if the ground alleged is not indubitable. The RTC had doubts regarding petitioner's claim of good faith, a question of fact requiring evidence, thus making the ground not indubitable. The deferment was a provisional denial within the court's discretion. On the issue of venue: The Court was not persuaded by petitioner's argument that venue should be in Bago City. The complaint was for "specific performance with damages." Private respondents did not claim ownership but recognized the defendants' title by annotating a notice of lis pendens. Citing a similar case, the Court held that such a complaint involving real property is a personal action, which may be filed in the proper court where the party resides. As it did not involve title to or ownership of real property, venue was not improperly laid in Bacolod City.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not assailable via certiorari; the aggrieved party's remedy is to interpose defenses and proceed to trial, elevating the issue on appeal after an adverse decision. Certiorari is only available if the denial constitutes grave abuse of discretion, which requires more than mere doubt on factual allegations.