Tensorex Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from an ejectment case filed by Tensorex Industrial Corporation against Alicia Gala and the Heirs of Manuel Gala. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Tensorex. Following this judgment, Tensorex sought to execute the judgment, which included arrears of P710,000.00. A preliminary injunction bond of P200,000.00 was posted by Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. in a related certiorari proceeding. 2. Procedural History: After the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the initial certiorari petition and recalled its preliminary injunction, the MTC allowed the execution of the judgment against the injunction bond posted by Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc., treating it as a supersedeas bond. Mercantile Insurance appealed this MTC order to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). While the appeal was pending, the sheriff levied on Mercantile Insurance's properties. Mercantile Insurance then filed a certiorari petition with the RTC to stop the sale of its properties, posting another P200,000.00 injunction bond. The RTC dismissed this certiorari petition, and Mercantile Insurance appealed to the CA. The CA initially dismissed this appeal for failure to file a memorandum, but later reinstated it after finding that Mercantile Insurance's counsel had not received notice to file the memorandum. The CA then issued a resolution accepting Mercantile Insurance's comment as its memorandum and ordered Tensorex to file its memorandum. Tensorex moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. 3. The Petition: Tensorex Industrial Corporation filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the CA's proceedings and resolutions, particularly the resolution that reinstated Mercantile Insurance's appeal. Tensorex argued that the CA gravely abused its discretion by taking cognizance of the appeal when the proper remedy under Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 was a petition for review, and by reinstating the appeal after it had become final. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the RTC's decision stemmed from a certiorari action, not an appellate review, thus making an ordinary appeal to the CA appropriate, and that the CA acted within its power to correct its own error regarding the notice to file memorandum.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction when it took cognizance of the appeal in CA G.R. SP No. 32025 despite the remedy under SC Circular No. 2-90 being a petition for review. Whether the respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of its jurisdiction when, after dismissing the appeal and denying the motion for reconsideration, it reinstated said appeal although the dismissal of the same had already become final.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Supreme Court found Tensorex's argument without merit. It clarified that the RTC's action, which Mercantile sought to review, was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal from the RTC's appellate jurisdiction. The Court distinguished between appeal by certiorari and an original special civil action for certiorari, noting that in the latter, the higher court exercises original jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the availability of an appeal does not preclude resort to extraordinary remedies like certiorari when appeal is not adequate or equally beneficial, speedy, and sufficient. In this case, Mercantile's properties were being attached, making appeal inadequate and necessitating the resort to certiorari. On the second issue: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the appeal. The CA itself admitted that it denied Mercantile's motion for reconsideration on the mistaken premise that Mercantile had received the notice to file a memorandum. Since Mercantile did not receive the notice, the period for filing the memorandum had not yet lapsed. The Court emphasized that courts should not be too dogmatic in interpreting procedural laws but should adopt a holistic view to render a just and equitable judgment. Procedural laws are to be liberally construed to achieve their objective of a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of actions. The CA merely corrected its own error, which is within its power and duty, especially when its attention was timely called to a defect. The Court found no whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment by the CA, and thus, certiorari was not available to cure alleged errors of judgment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' resolution reinstating the appeal, holding that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in correcting its own error based on a mistaken premise, and that procedural laws should be liberally construed to achieve justice.