Chua v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the demolition of houses and/or huts allegedly constructed without the requisite building and occupancy permits on a property owned by the heirs of Isabel and Mariano Balles. The registered owners filed a complaint against the petitioners for the demolition of these structures. The Officer-in-Charge of the City Building Office subsequently issued a resolution ordering the petitioners to self-demolish their houses within fifteen days, citing violations of the National Building Code, including lack of permits and structural hazards. The petitioners claimed to be lessees of the property for over ten years and argued that the demolition order was an illegal usurpation of judicial power and a violation of their due process rights. Procedural History: Following the demolition order, the petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, seeking to prevent the demolition. The RTC denied their plea for a writ of preliminary injunction, citing provisions of the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules. Subsequently, the Building Official issued a Notice of Demolition. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the RTC's order and to secure a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The CA dismissed this petition on technical grounds, including a defective certification of non-forum shopping, failure to provide a written explanation for non-personal service, and failure to seek prior reconsideration of the RTC order. The CA later denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioners filed an "alternative petition" with the Supreme Court, seeking review under Rule 45 or certiorari under Rule 65. They argued that the CA's dismissal of their petition on technical grounds violated the liberal construction of procedural rules and was contrary to established jurisprudence. They also contended that the demolition order and notice were illegal and unconstitutional, that the private respondents engaged in forum shopping, and that the RTC judge erred in denying their injunction. Furthermore, they claimed their houses existed before the National Building Code took effect and that a partial demolition occurred without proper notice. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition without merit, emphasizing that certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45, and that the CA's dismissal was justified, particularly regarding the defective certification of non-forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on technical grounds. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 can be availed of as a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45. Whether the certification of non-forum shopping was substantially complied with. Whether the demolition order was illegal and unconstitutional. Whether the petitioners' houses existed prior to the effectivity of the National Building Code.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the dismissal of the petition for certiorari on technical grounds: The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the illegality and unconstitutionality of the demolition order, the existence of houses prior to the National Building Code, and the alleged forum shopping and grave abuse of discretion by the RTC given the procedural infirmities that warranted the dismissal of the petition. The CA's dismissal on technical grounds rendered the substantive issues moot. On the propriety of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45: The Court reiterated that remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original and independent action, whereas a petition for review under Rule 45 is a continuation of the appellate process. The special civil action of certiorari will not be allowed as a substitute for failure to timely file a petition for review or for the lost remedy of appeal. The petitioners received the CA's Resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on February 4, 1998, giving them until February 19, 1998, to perfect their appeal under Rule 45. Instead, they filed the instant petition, designating it as an "alternative petition" under both Rule 45 and Rule 65. This was an improper recourse, as Rule 65 is not a cure for failure to timely file an appeal under Rule 45, especially when such lapse is occasioned by one's own neglect or error. The Court found no exceptional circumstances (public welfare, broader interest of justice, nullity of writs, oppressive exercise of authority) to justify a deviation from this general rule. On the sufficiency of the certification of non-forum shopping: Even if the procedural lapses were overlooked and recourse under Rule 65 was allowed, the petition would still fail. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners, Socorro Chua, without any showing that she was authorized by her co-petitioners to represent them or that she had personal knowledge of their actions or claims. Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath. Substantial compliance is not sufficient in matters requiring strict observance of rules, as the attestation requires personal knowledge. The petitioners failed to show reasonable cause for the failure of the other petitioners to personally sign the certification, and their "utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction." On the illegality and unconstitutionality of the demolition order: The Court found it unnecessary to discuss this issue given the procedural infirmities that warranted the dismissal of the petition. However, it noted that the RTC denied the plea for preliminary injunction based on Sections 301 of the National Building Code and Section 3.8 of Rule VII of its Implementing Rules, which pertain to illegal construction and demolition. The CA's dismissal on technical grounds rendered the substantive issues moot. On the existence of houses prior to the National Building Code: This issue was also rendered moot by the procedural dismissals. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the petitioners' houses were existing structures before the effectivity of P.D. 1096 in 1977.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45, especially when the loss is due to the petitioner's own neglect or error in choosing the remedy. Strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly regarding certifications of non-forum shopping, is required.