Dacuba v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents filed an Amended Complaint against petitioner Manuel Dacuba seeking the declaration of nullity of a sale, cancellation of title, recovery of possession, reconveyance of title, and damages. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Buhi, Camarines Sur, ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the Deed of Sale null and void, canceling the title issued to Dacuba, reinstating the original title, and directing the transfer of possession of the land, except for the portion already sold to Dacuba. The MTC also ordered the heirs of Orlando Bragais to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of Dacuba or, if physical division was impracticable, for the respondents to reimburse Dacuba P5,000.00. Procedural History: Petitioner Manuel Dacuba appealed the MTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 36. The RTC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MTC's decision. Dacuba's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC. Subsequently, Dacuba filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed this petition for failure to attach necessary pleadings and documents as required by Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Dacuba's motion for reconsideration of the CA's dismissal was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner Manuel Dacuba filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the resolutions of the Court of Appeals that dismissed his petition for review and denied his motion for reconsideration. Dacuba contends that the CA erred in not giving due course to his petition and in holding that the appended annexes did not suffice to meet the requirements of Section 2(d) of Rule 42. He argues that he complied with the rules by attaching pertinent documents related to the issue of jurisdiction and that other issues could be determined from the existing pleadings. The respondents, in their comment, assert that Dacuba failed to comply with the rules and that his pleas for substantial compliance should be rejected as dilatory.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review for failure to attach the required annexes. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied due course to the petition. It held that the petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 was improper, as the proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court also found that the petition for certiorari and mandamus failed to allege the necessary elements for such a petition, namely, that the CA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and that there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that the petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 was an improper remedy. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for review and denying the motion for reconsideration were final orders. The appropriate remedy to assail such final orders on questions of law was a petition for review on certiorari under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that Rule 65 is a special civil action that is only available when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since a remedy under Rule 45 was available, the petition under Rule 65 could not be sustained. Even if the petition were treated as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it was found to be insufficient in form. The petition failed to contain the essential allegations required by Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, it did not allege that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it did not assert that the petitioner had no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court noted that the existence of a remedy under Rule 45 already negates the claim of absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. On the failure to attach annexes: While the Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the CA's dismissal for failure to attach annexes, it implicitly acknowledged that such procedural lapses, if not properly addressed or justified, can lead to the dismissal of a petition. However, the primary reason for denying due course to the petition was the impropriety of the remedy sought and the insufficiency of the allegations in the petition itself. On grave abuse of discretion: The primary reason for denying due course to the petition was the impropriety of the remedy sought and the insufficiency of the allegations in the petition itself. The Court did not find grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 is improper to assail a final order of the Court of Appeals when the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is available. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must specifically allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and the absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.