Emergency Loan Pawnshop, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Traders Royal Bank (TRB) sold a parcel of land in Baguio City to Emergency Loan Pawnshop Incorporated (ELPI) for P500,000.00. ELPI alleged that TRB misrepresented the property's condition, stating it was a vacant residential lot with a usable area of 1,143.75 square meters, when in reality, it was predominantly a public road with only 140 square meters usable. After discovering the misrepresentation and spending resources to ascertain the property's true condition, ELPI demanded rescission of the sale. TRB refused, leading ELPI to file a complaint for annulment of sale and damages. 2. Procedural History: ELPI filed its complaint against TRB with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Davao. TRB filed a Motion to Dismiss based on improper venue, which the RTC denied. TRB's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, TRB elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. The CA granted TRB's petition, annulling and setting aside the RTC's orders and dismissing ELPI's complaint on the ground of improper venue. 3. The Petition: Petitioners ELPI and Danilo R. Napala seek review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision. They contend that the CA erred in entertaining the petition for certiorari and prohibition, asserting it lacked jurisdiction because the issue of improper venue is a question of law, and an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not subject to certiorari. Furthermore, they argue the CA erred in ruling that the RTC was incorrect in not dismissing the complaint for improper venue.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the petition for certiorari and prohibition. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court erred in not dismissing the complaint for improper venue.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the petition for certiorari and prohibition: The general rule is that the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order and cannot be appealed or questioned via certiorari until a final judgment is rendered. However, this rule is not absolute. Certiorari is considered appropriate when the trial court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction, or when there is patent grave abuse of discretion, or when appeal would not be a speedy and adequate remedy. In this case, the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue constituted a palpable and grievous error amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, thus falling under the exceptions to the general rule. The Court of Appeals correctly entertained the petition for certiorari. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court erred in not dismissing the complaint for improper venue: The action filed was for annulment of sale involving a parcel of land located in Baguio City. The venue for actions affecting title to or possession of real property is the court of the region where the property or any part thereof lies. The RTC, by entertaining the case in Davao, clearly committed a grave error amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, as venue was improperly laid. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that the RTC erred in denying the motion to dismiss.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion to dismiss based on improper venue, when such denial constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may be subject to a special civil action for certiorari, as appeal would not be a speedy and adequate remedy.