Flores v. Bercasio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Milagros G. Flores, a registered nurse residing in New York, USA, owned a parcel of land in Baguio City. On May 3, 1996, she executed a Deed of Sale for this property to respondents Teresita and Jovita Bercasio for US$75,000, with a downpayment and the balance payable in installments. The respondents mortgaged the property back to the petitioner as security. The respondents took possession of the property. On June 6, 1999, petitioner and her husband filed a Complaint for Foreclosure of Mortgage and Damages against the respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, alleging non-payment of installments and a resulting debt of US$39,800.00 plus interest and attorney's fees. The respondents, in their answer, claimed they had already paid the balance and even overpaid. Procedural History: The RTC of Baguio City, Branch 7, initially heard the case. During pre-trial, the petitioner amended her complaint to state she was the sole registered owner, dropping her husband as a plaintiff. After trial, on December 11, 2000, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the petitioner's husband was an indispensable party who had not been joined. The petitioner received the decision on January 3, 2001, and filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 11, 2001. The RTC gave due course to the appeal. However, on March 20, 2001, while the appeal was pending, the petitioner filed a motion for leave and extension of time to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that an ordinary appeal was the incorrect remedy. The CA received the petition for certiorari on March 26, 2001. On April 27, 2001, the CA denied the motion for extension and dismissed the petition for certiorari, finding it filed out of time. The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on July 17, 2001. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the CA's resolutions through a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She contends that the CA erred in denying her motion for leave and extension to file a petition for certiorari, in dismissing her petition for certiorari despite its alleged merit and timely filing within the sought extension, and in denying her motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argues that the CA departed from the usual course of judicial proceedings and contravened applicable rules and jurisprudence. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petitioner had 60 days from January 5, 2001, to file her petition for certiorari, which would have been until March 6, 2001. Even with a 15-day extension, the petition filed on March 26, 2001, was still out of time. The Court also noted that the RTC's decision was an error of judgment, not jurisdiction, making an appeal the proper remedy, and that a petition for certiorari was inappropriate as a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal existed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner’s motion for leave and extension of time to file a petition for certiorari, and in dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari due to procedural errors and the availability of an ordinary appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the Regional Trial Court (RTC)'s decision involved an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction, making certiorari an improper remedy. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, considering the availability of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy through an ordinary appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying the motion for extension and dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari, timeliness of filing, and availability of appeal: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to correct an error of judgment. The proper remedy was an ordinary appeal. The Court found that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time, even with the extension requested. The CA correctly ruled that the petition was filed out of time. On the nature of the RTC's error and the exclusivity of remedies: The Court emphasized that the assailed decision of the RTC, even if erroneous, constituted an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Therefore, the appropriate remedy was an appeal by writ of error from the decision of the RTC, not a petition for certiorari. The remedy of appeal and a petition for certiorari are mutually exclusive. On the availability of plain, speedy, and adequate remedy and adherence to procedural rules: The petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which was to file an appeal from the RTC's decision. Since such a remedy was available, the petition for certiorari was inappropriate. The Court stressed that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed, and the petitioner's plea for relaxation of the rules in the interest of substantial justice was without merit, as the remedy of appeal in the CA was still available.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to correct an error of judgment, which can be corrected by an ordinary appeal. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari must be filed within the reglementary period, and extensions are granted only for compelling reasons and should not exceed fifteen days.