Pacaña Conejos v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Eutiquio Plania filed a complaint for specific performance/rescission with damages against petitioner Teresita Pacaña Conejos. Plania alleged that they entered into an agreement where each would pay half the purchase price of a residential lot, and upon full payment, they would divide and register the lot in their individual names. Plania claimed to have paid his share of P22,804.91 but Conejos refused to divide the lot and register it as agreed. Plania also alleged that Conejos failed to remit the proceeds from selling his share of the property, which Plania had authorized her to do. 2. Procedural History: The case was initially filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cebu City, which dismissed Plania's complaint for insufficient evidence, noting that receipts were not in Plania's name and giving less credence to the Minutes of Hearing from the Barangay Captain's office. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC decision, finding that the agreement was not abandoned and giving weight to the Minutes of Hearing and Plania's payments. The RTC ruled that Conejos should either reimburse Plania for the sold portion or turn over her portion of the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, finding no evidence of mutual abandonment and upholding the probative value of the Minutes of Hearing. Conejos' motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Teresita Pacaña Conejos filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by not ruling that the agreement was mutually cancelled and by giving probative value to the Minutes of Hearing and official receipts. Conejos contended that the Minutes were mere proposals for settlement and that the agreement was cancelled due to Plania's failure to prove payments and the title being issued solely in her name. The Supreme Court noted that a Petition for Certiorari was the wrong remedy, as a Petition for Review on Certiorari should have been filed within the reglementary period. The Court found no justifiable reason for the delay and dismissed the petition for being an improper remedy and for lack of merit, as the issues raised required a review of factual findings which is beyond the Court's scope.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not ruling that there was mutual cancellation of the Memorandum of Agreement. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in giving probative value to the Minutes of Hearing and the official receipts presented in evidence by Plania. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when an appeal has been lost due to failure to file within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED as a wrong remedy and for utter lack of merit. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged mutual cancellation of the Memorandum of Agreement: The Court found no merit in petitioner's argument that the MOA was mutually cancelled. The RTC correctly ruled that a written agreement cannot be considered abandoned by the mere say-so of one party. The Court of Appeals also found a dearth of evidence to support the claim of mutual abandonment. The fact that the certificate of title was issued solely in Conejos' name was explained by the RTC as understandable since Conejos was considered the original buyer by the estate, and Borromeo Bros. Estate, Inc. was not privy to the MOA between Conejos and Plania. On the probative value of the Minutes of Hearing and official receipts: The Court agreed with the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the Minutes of Hearing, being an official document issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman, was admissible and had probative value, even without the signatures of Plania and Conejos. Its authenticity was not questioned, and the Pangkat Secretary testified to its contents. The RTC's observation that the official receipts were issued in Conejos' name was also deemed understandable given her status as the original buyer. The Court found that both the trial and appellate courts did not abuse their discretion in assessing these factual findings, which were amply supported by the records and grounded in law. On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that the petition for certiorari was the wrong mode of appeal. The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision on January 9, 2001, and petitioner received notice on January 22, 2001. After the denial of her motion for reconsideration on May 31, 2001, petitioner received notice on June 13, 2001. Her remedy should have been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which should have been filed within fifteen (15) days from June 13, 2001, or until June 28, 2001. Instead, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari on August 13, 2001, more than one month and twenty-five days after the reglementary period had lapsed. The special civil action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal that has been lost.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal that has been lost due to failure to file within the reglementary period, absent any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court will not hesitate to dismiss such a petition, especially when the arguments raised are without merit and merely rehash issues already resolved by the lower courts, requiring a review of factual findings which is beyond the scope of certiorari.