Richard Teh v. The Honorable Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent EIM International Sales, Inc. filed a collection of sum of money case with a prayer for preliminary attachment against Wood Based Panels, Inc., Sinrimco, Inc., Manfred Luig, and petitioner Richard Teh. Petitioner was impleaded as he was the President of both Wood Based Panels, Inc. and Sinrimco, Inc. Summons were served on the corporations and Luig, but the sheriff could not locate petitioner's address as provided in the complaint, which was obtained from the General Information Sheets filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Procedural History: After the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied and they filed their answers, the respondent moved to set the case for pre-trial. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over his person due to lack of summons. The trial court canceled and reset the pre-trial, ordering the respondent to reply. The respondent explained the difficulty in serving summons due to the unlocatable address. The trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss and ordered an alias summons. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction and failure to prosecute. The trial court denied this motion. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals, questioning the trial court's orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition for failure to attach original or certified true copies of annexes, and later denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Court of Appeals' resolutions. He argues the appellate court erred in dismissing his motion for reconsideration despite acknowledging his correct interpretation of Rule 65 regarding required attachments. Petitioner also contends the appellate court erred in ruling that the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss was an interlocutory order beyond the scope of certiorari, and that the trial court should have dismissed the case for failure to serve summons and prosecute. He claims the appellate court should not have dismissed his petition on grounds other than the initial technicality.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration despite its own finding that petitioner's position on the required annexes for a petition for certiorari was correct. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court's order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari. Whether the trial court erred in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and in ordering the issuance of an alias summons, considering the alleged failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and the respondent's alleged failure to prosecute the case.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' denial of the motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the Court of Appeals was not required to delve into the merits of the petition for certiorari before issuing its initial resolution dismissing the petition on a formal defect. Under Rule 65, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for certiorari may be dismissed outright if it is insufficient in form. Once the appellate court reviewed the motion for reconsideration and found the petitioner's argument regarding the annexes to be correct, it then proceeded to examine the merits of the petition. However, it found the petition to be without merit based on substantive grounds, specifically the nature of the order being assailed. On whether an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order beyond the scope of certiorari: The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals that an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order. Such an order does not finally resolve the merits of the case or the rights of the parties, and therefore, it cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. The proper remedy for a party aggrieved by such an order is to proceed with the case and raise the issue as an error of judgment in a subsequent appeal, if the case is decided against them. The appellate court correctly found that the trial court's order denying the motion to dismiss was beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari. On the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss and order for alias summons: The Court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. While the respondent could have explored other means to ascertain petitioner's correct address, the failure to serve summons was partly attributable to the incorrect address provided by the petitioner's own corporations in their official filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The trial court exercised its discretion under Rule 16, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a judge to deny a motion to dismiss or order amendments. The trial court deemed it necessary to acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner to fully resolve the issues presented in the complaint, thus ordering the issuance of an alias summons was a valid exercise of its discretion.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order and is generally not subject to a petition for certiorari, as it does not finally determine the rights of the parties. The trial court did not commit abuse of discretion in denying a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the person and ordering the issuance of an alias summons, especially when the incorrect address was provided by the defendant's own corporations.