Rosete v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents entered into a Contract to Buy and Sell with AFP-RSBS for parcels of land in Occidental Mindoro. Petitioner Oscar Mapalo, who brokered this sale, obtained an authority to sell the properties. Petitioner Alfredo P. Rosete subsequently acquired private respondents' rights under the Contract to Buy and Sell via a Deed of Assignment, with a stipulated consideration of P25,000,000.00. Petitioner Mapalo later bought out petitioner Rosete's interests and sold the property to Espreme Realty for P150,000,000.00, though Espreme Realty failed to pay the full amount. Petitioners allege private respondents were aware that the funding for a check issued to them was contingent on the payment from Espreme Realty. When this check was dishonored, private respondents demanded liquidated damages and sought to revoke the assignment. Procedural History: Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners and others with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, seeking annulment of subsequent sales, restoration of title, and damages. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper venue, as the properties were located in Occidental Mindoro. The RTC denied this motion, citing a venue stipulation in the original Contract to Buy and Sell, which it deemed binding on the petitioners as assignees. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC's denial of their motion to dismiss. The CA denied the petition, affirming the RTC's findings on venue and cause of action, and subsequently denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners seek reversal of the CA's decision and resolution through a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65. They argue that the CA and the RTC gravely abused their discretion by assuming jurisdiction and not dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and lack of cause of action. Specifically, they contend that as they were not signatories to the original contract, they cannot be bound by its venue stipulation. They also argue that the RTC judge acted without or exceeded jurisdiction in denying their motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court notes that the proper remedy should have been an appeal under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's denial of the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, considering the issue of improper remedy (Rule 65 vs. Rule 45). Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's denial of the Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was pro forma.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal under Rule 45, which petitioners lost by failing to file within the reglementary period. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that petitioners, as assignees and parties involved in the transaction, are bound by the venue stipulation in the original Contract to Buy and Sell.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper remedy (Rule 65 vs. Rule 45) and jurisdiction and venue: The Court held that petitioners' resort to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 was improper because they had lost their remedy of appeal under Rule 45. The reglementary period for appeal had expired after they received the Court of Appeals' Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration. The Court stressed that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, as these remedies are mutually exclusive. The issues raised, such as improper venue and lack of cause of action, could and should have been raised on appeal. The Court found that the venue stipulation in the Contract to Buy and Sell, which designated the courts of Quezon City for any disputes, was binding on the petitioners. Although petitioners were not direct signatories to the original contract, petitioner Alfredo P. Rosete was an assignee and thus stepped into the shoes of the private respondents, his assignors. As such, he was bound by the contract's provisions, including the venue stipulation. Petitioners Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete, being involved in the transaction through Alfredo Rosete, were also deemed bound by the jurisdiction and venue agreed upon. On the issue of lack of cause of action: The Court affirmed the lower courts' finding that the allegations in the private respondents' Complaint were sufficient to establish a cause of action, particularly against petitioner Alfredo Rosete. The Court found that the allegations were not so patently and indubitably wanting as to warrant dismissal at the outset. On the issue of the pro forma Motion for Reconsideration: While the Court did not explicitly detail its reasoning on this point, its affirmation of the lower courts' denial of the Motion to Dismiss and the subsequent petition implies that the Motion for Reconsideration was not considered pro forma, or at least, that the denial of the Motion to Dismiss was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal under Rule 45, especially when the latter remedy was lost due to the failure to file within the reglementary period. Furthermore, an assignee is bound by the stipulations in the contract they have assumed, including stipulations on venue.