Bonifacio Construction Management Corp. v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Bonifacio Construction Management Corporation (BCMC) was engaged in the Fort Bonifacio-Kalayaan-Buendia Flyover Project II in Makati City. The construction significantly impacted nearby businesses, including Dr. Gary Cruz's medical clinic, by deterring patients and clients due to safety concerns and parking difficulties. Dr. Cruz sought compensation from BCMC for alleged losses incurred due to the construction. 2. Procedural History: Dr. Cruz initially filed a complaint with the Barangay Chairman, which BCMC ignored. He then sent a demand letter for P2,000.00 daily for lost income, which BCMC refused. This led Dr. Cruz to file a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 142. BCMC filed a motion to dismiss, which the RTC denied. BCMC then filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Subsequently, BCMC filed another motion to dismiss, alleging failure to implead an indispensable party, which the RTC again denied. BCMC then filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed BCMC's petition, and its subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: BCMC filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. BCMC contended that the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its second motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court, however, found that the CA correctly ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy to assail an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss, and that even if it were, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the RTC. The Court emphasized that the proper recourse after denial of a motion to dismiss is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and appeal any adverse judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and/or prohibition. Whether the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's second motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari and/or prohibition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari (Issue 1): The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. Such an order does not terminate the case but leaves something to be done by the court. It is under the court's control and can be modified or rescinded before final judgment. Therefore, the proper remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but to appeal after a final judgment has been rendered. A writ of certiorari is reserved for correcting grave abuse of discretion or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, not for correcting interlocutory rulings. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion (Issue 2): Even assuming certiorari was the proper remedy, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. The Court noted that the second motion to dismiss was filed after petitioner had already filed its answer, which is contrary to Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, stating that a motion to dismiss must be filed before or within the time for filing an answer. Furthermore, even if an indispensable party was not impleaded, Section 11, Rule 3 of the same Rules provides that misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal, as parties may be added or dropped by court order. The Court also pointed out that petitioner cannot dictate to the plaintiff whom to implead, as the plaintiff will bear the consequences of any error in their choice of defendants. Thus, the trial court acted judiciously in denying the motion.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and the proper remedy is to appeal after a decision has been rendered, not a petition for certiorari, unless there is grave abuse of discretion.