Siena Realty Corporation v. Gal-Lang
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a complaint filed by Siena Realty Corporation, represented by Lydia Co Hao and Lilibeth Manlugon, against Anita Co Ng. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 44, dismissed Siena Realty's complaint upon motion by the private respondent. The RTC subsequently denied Siena Realty's motion for reconsideration of this dismissal order. 2. Procedural History: Siena Realty Corporation, through its representatives, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC's denial of their motion for reconsideration. The CA, in a resolution dated June 20, 2000, dismissed this petition, finding it to have been filed out of time. Siena Realty then filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA's dismissal order. The CA, by resolution dated September 13, 2000, denied this motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Siena Realty Corporation filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, challenging the CA's September 13, 2000 Resolution. Petitioners argue that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to take mandatory judicial notice of Supreme Court A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4 of Rule 65 and took effect on September 1, 2000, prior to the CA's resolution. This amendment, they contend, would have made their petition timely filed. However, the Supreme Court noted that even with the amendment, the petition would still fail because the RTC's dismissal order was a final order subject to appeal, not a petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals was filed out of time. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for certiorari by failing to take mandatory judicial notice of the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether the RTC's order dismissing the complaint was a final and appealable order or an interlocutory order, and consequently, whether certiorari was the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal of the complaint by the RTC was a final order, subject to appeal, not a petition for certiorari. Even with the amendment to Rule 65, the petition was still filed out of time and against the wrong remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and timeliness of the petition before the Court of Appeals: The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail an order issued with grave abuse of discretion; a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct mode. The Court noted that the petitioners filed their petition for certiorari before the CA on June 7, 2000, which was timely based on the rules then prevailing, properly accounting for the interruption caused by the motion for reconsideration. The CA's dismissal based on a misinterpretation of the rules was incorrect. On the mandatory judicial notice of procedural amendments: The Court held that the CA should have taken mandatory judicial notice of the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as per Supreme Court A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000. This amendment clarified the computation of the period for filing certiorari petitions when a motion for reconsideration is filed. The Court emphasized that procedural rules, especially those pertaining to timeliness, generally have retroactive effect and apply to pending cases, and the CA's failure to take judicial notice was an error. On the nature of the RTC's order and the proper remedy: Despite the procedural missteps by the CA and the potential retroactive application of the amended rule, the Supreme Court found that the petition still failed because the order of the RTC dismissing the complaint was a final order, not an interlocutory one. Final orders are appealable, while interlocutory orders are not. Therefore, the proper remedy for the petitioners to assail the dismissal of their complaint was to file an appeal, not a petition for certiorari. By the time the petitioners filed their petition for certiorari before the CA, the RTC's order dismissing the complaint had already become final and executory, as the period for appeal had lapsed, rendering the petition invalid.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail an order issued with grave abuse of discretion, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals should take mandatory judicial notice of amendments to procedural rules, especially those concerning timeliness, which take effect retroactively on pending matters. However, a petition for certiorari cannot be used to assail a final order that has become executory, which should instead be subject to appeal.