National Electrification Administration v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Construction Services of Australia — Philippines, Inc. (CONSAPHIL) filed a collection suit against Engineering and Construction Corporation of Asia (ECCO-ASIA) for work done under a Sub-Contract Work Agreement. PANELCO and National Electrification Administration (NEA) were impleaded, with NEA alleged to be holding P1.2 million in retention money due to ECCO-ASIA. Procedural History: The trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining NEA from releasing the P1.2 million. A motion to deposit the money was initially denied but later granted. NEA admitted that the retained money amounted to P1,390,789.40. The trial court dismissed the complaint against PANELCO and NEA, ordering NEA to surrender the P1.2 million to the court. NEA moved for reconsideration, arguing the injunction was lifted upon its dismissal from the case. The trial court approved a compromise agreement between CONSAPHIL and ECCO-ASIA. A writ of execution was issued against the P1.2 million deposit. NEA moved to quash the writ, asserting the injunction was lifted and no trial determined ownership. The Sheriff executed against the deposit. NEA filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The Petition: NEA filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court, raising four assignment of errors concerning the Court of Appeals' rulings on appealability, res judicata, admission of facts, and the lifting of the preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner has any right of appeal from the orders of the trial court dated August 6, 1990 and May 29, 1990, and not having availed of the same, petitioner is precluded from resorting to a special civil action of certiorari filed before it. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the decision of the trial court dated October 5, 1991, a judgment based on a compromise agreement between respondents CONSAPHIL and ECCO-ASIA, has the effect of res judicata against petitioner's special civil action of certiorari filed before it. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner had admitted in the pleadings filed before the trial court that the P1.2 million belongs to respondent ECCO-ASIA. Whether the Court of Appeals failed to consider that the trial court had no jurisdiction in proceeding against petitioner's P1.2 million, the preliminary injunction covering it having been automatically lifted by petitioner's dismissal from the case pursuant to the ruling of Golez vs. Leonidas, 107 SCRA 187.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court denied due course to the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appealability and the propriety of certiorari: The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the orders of August 6, 1990 and May 29, 1991 had become final and executory because they were never appealed. Consequently, these orders could no longer be modified, and the issues therein resolved could not be relitigated. The doctrine of res judicata bars such attempts. Furthermore, certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal; the existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action of certiorari. The petitioner should have availed of a timely appeal instead of resorting to certiorari after the orders had become final. On the effect of the compromise agreement and res judicata: The Court affirmed the ruling that the decision approving the compromise agreement between CONSAPHIL and ECCO-ASIA had the effect of res judicata. A compromise agreement, once approved by the court, is binding and cannot be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery, neither of which was shown by the petitioner. The fundamental principle of res judicata is that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any defect in the compromise agreement that would warrant setting it aside. On the judicial admission of ownership: The Court found that the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the petitioner had judicially admitted that the P1.2 million belongs to ECCO-ASIA. The petitioner admitted the allegations in CONSAPHIL's Request for Admission, specifically stating that the retained money belonging to ECCO-ASIA held by NEA amounted to P1,390,789.40. Additionally, NEA admitted in its answer to the complaint that it possessed ECCO-ASIA's 10% retention money. These judicial admissions, made in the course of the proceedings, are binding on NEA in the absence of a showing of palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. On the jurisdiction and the lifting of the preliminary injunction: The petitioner's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the preliminary injunction was automatically lifted upon its dismissal from the case, citing Golez vs. Leonidas, was found to be without merit. The cited case pertains to the lifting of an injunction upon dismissal of the main case. In this instance, the main case was not dismissed against all parties; it continued until the compromise agreement between CONSAPHIL and ECCO-ASIA was approved. The dismissal of the case against NEA did not result in the dismissal of the action against the other parties, and the court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the case as against the remaining parties.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari may not be resorted to as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the orders sought to be reviewed have become final and executory due to failure to appeal.