Ongsitco v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marcelo L. Ongsitco was the lessee of a property at 2044 Velasquez, Tondo, Manila. The property was foreclosed and subsequently purchased by United Plaza Realty Corporation (United). No written contract of lease existed between Ongsitco and United. Procedural History: United filed an ejectment suit against Ongsitco for failure to pay rentals. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of United, ordering Ongsitco to vacate and pay unpaid rentals and damages. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC decision but modified the monthly rental amount. Ongsitco, instead of filing a petition for review, filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: Ongsitco's counsel filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus beyond the reglementary period for a petition for review. Ongsitco died during the pendency of the case, and his heirs were substituted. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal and that the lease terminated upon Ongsitco's death.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that certiorari will not lie as a substitute for a lost appeal. Whether the death of the lessee terminates the leasehold right, and consequently, whether the heirs of the lessee have a colorable right to occupy the leased premises after the lessee's death. Whether the lessee is entitled to reimbursement for improvements made on the leased premises. Whether the negligence of counsel binds the client.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error in dismissing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment, which are correctible by appeal. Where an appeal is the proper remedy, certiorari will not lie. The extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the proper remedy was a petition for review, which was available but not availed of by the petitioner within the reglementary period. The filing of a petition for certiorari was an inappropriate mode of appeal, which rendered it inefficacious. On the effect of the lessee's death and the rights of heirs: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that with the death of the lessee, Marcelo L. Ongsitco, the lease in his favor is legally terminated. Consequently, his heirs do not have any colorable right to occupy the apartment thereafter. The Court noted that the issue of whether a leasehold right is inheritable was rendered academic because the decision of the Regional Trial Court had become final due to the failure to perfect an appeal. Therefore, the Court did not pass upon the question of whether leasehold rights are inheritable or if the heirs could be substituted. On the claim for reimbursement of improvements: The Court found no error in the Court of Appeals' ruling that the lessee was not entitled to reimbursement for improvements made on the leased premises. The Court affirmed the principle that a lessee cannot be considered a builder in good faith because they know or should know that they are not the owner of the property. Good faith, in the context of building on another's land, requires the belief that the land is one's own and ignorance of any defect in title. Since the lessee is aware they are not the owner, they cannot claim the rights of a builder in good faith. On the negligence of counsel: The Court upheld the principle that a client is bound by the negligence and mistake of their counsel. The duty of counsel is to scrupulously follow the requisites for appeal prescribed by law, and any non-compliance may be fatal to the client's cause. To allow a client to disavow the consequences of their counsel's mistake would open the door to improvident petitions and undermine the finality of judgments and the stability of judicial doctrines. The petitioner failed to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in considering the counsel's mistake as binding on the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari will not lie as a substitute for a lost appeal, and the negligence of counsel binds the client.