Cano-Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by respondent Herminio A. Gutierrez against petitioner Maria Victoria Cano-Gutierrez. The couple was married on May 2, 1989, and had two children. Petitioner claims she left the conjugal home on January 16, 1994, due to respondent's maltreatment and jealousy, moving to different residences. Respondent alleges he discovered petitioner having an affair in their conjugal home on the same date, which led him to develop psychological impotency and file for annulment. 2. Procedural History: Respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on August 16, 1995. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 151, granted the petition on May 3, 1996. Petitioner claims she did not receive the summons, petition, or the decision, thus failing to appeal. She subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on February 28, 1997, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to defective service of summons. The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition on May 21, 1998, ruling that certiorari was an improper remedy and that the summons was validly served. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, primarily arguing that the appellate court erred in ruling that her proper remedy was a timely appeal rather than a petition for certiorari, and in holding that summons was properly served upon her. She contends that the summons was delivered to an unauthorized person at an address where she no longer resided, and that the respondent knew her correct address. Petitioner also disputes the validity of the Officer's Return and the credibility of the witnesses who attested to the service. She asserts that the Court of Appeals should have considered the merits of her claim regarding improper service of process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a petition for certiorari was an improper remedy to assail the trial court's decision. Whether the summons and petition for declaration of nullity of marriage were validly served upon the petitioner. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari as a remedy: The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled rule that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. The petitioner received a copy of the trial court's decision on May 10, 1996, and thus had fifteen days from that date to file an appeal under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Her failure to file a timely appeal, which rendered the decision final and executory, was due to her own negligence or error in choosing the wrong remedy. While the Court may, in the broader interests of justice, give due course to a certiorari petition when the proper remedy is appeal, the equities of this case do not warrant such recourse, as the lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the validity of service of summons: The Court found that the summons was validly served through substituted service. The Officer's Return indicated that the summons was received by Ms. Susan B. Gutierrez, a relative-in-law, who acknowledged receipt on behalf of the petitioner and claimed to be authorized. Contrary to the petitioner's claim, records showed that Ms. Gutierrez was a resident of the conjugal dwelling at the time of service. Her affidavit corroborated the Process Server's return, attesting that she resided there and received the summons for the petitioner. The Court gave credence to these statements over the petitioner's bare allegations. Furthermore, the petitioner's credibility was undermined by her claim that her signature on an "Amicable Settlement" (which contained her alleged correct address) was forged, thereby discrediting her evidence regarding her supposed non-residence at the conjugal home. The testimony of the Barangay Captain also supported the finding that the petitioner and respondent had reconciled and were residing together at the conjugal address until September or October 1995, which was after the summons was served on August 31, 1995. On the acquisition of jurisdiction: Since the service of summons was found to be valid through substituted service in compliance with Rule 14, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The substituted service was effected by leaving a copy of the summons at the defendant's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, which was Ms. Susan B. Gutierrez.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal due to the petitioner's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy, especially when the lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion.