Balayan v. Acorda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Yolanda R. Balayan and Flordeliza Jimenez filed separate complaints for accion publiciana against respondent Miguel Acorda with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). Petitioners claimed ownership and possession of two parcels of land, alleging that respondent unlawfully entered and planted crops on them, refusing to vacate. Respondent denied these allegations, asserting his ownership based on a prior purchase and claiming petitioners' titles were spurious, thus filing a counterclaim for quieting of title. Procedural History: The MCTC granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioners and subsequently rendered judgments ordering the respondent to vacate the properties. After the period for appeal lapsed, the MCTC issued orders for execution and a writ of execution. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to annul the MCTC's order for execution, alleging lack of knowledge of the decision and procedural irregularities. The RTC initially dismissed the petition for being filed out of time but later reconsidered and granted it, nullifying the MCTC's execution order. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of this latter order was denied by the RTC, leading to the present petition. The Petition: This case reaches the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners argue that the RTC erred in giving due course to the respondent's petition for certiorari. They contend that the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the reglementary 60-day period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and that certiorari was an inappropriate remedy as respondent failed to exhaust other available legal remedies, such as a motion to quash the writ of execution, before resorting to the extraordinary writ.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC correctly gave due course to respondent's petition for certiorari, considering the availability of other remedies. Whether certiorari was the proper remedy to annul the MCTC's order for the issuance of a writ of execution. Whether respondent's petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the November 22, 2001 Order of the RTC and reinstated its Order dated July 6, 2001. The RTC erred in giving due course to respondent's petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and RTC giving due course: The Supreme Court held that a special civil action for certiorari is a limited remedy of last resort, available only when there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal. While no appeal may be taken from an order of execution, certiorari is not the only available remedy. Respondent could have filed a motion to quash the order and writ of execution with the MCTC, thereby giving the lower court an opportunity to correct its alleged errors. The Court emphasized that before invoking the certiorari jurisdiction of the RTC, respondent should have waited for the MCTC to resolve the matters raised in the motion to quash. Since the records do not indicate any bar to filing such a motion, respondent's immediate resort to a petition for certiorari without availing of other reliefs provided by law rendered it an inappropriate remedy. The petition for certiorari filed with the RTC should have been dismissed outright. On the propriety of certiorari as a remedy: The Supreme Court held that a special civil action for certiorari is a limited remedy of last resort, available only when there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lapsed or lost appeal. While no appeal may be taken from an order of execution, certiorari is not the only available remedy. Respondent could have filed a motion to quash the order and writ of execution with the MCTC, thereby giving the lower court an opportunity to correct its alleged errors. The Court emphasized that before invoking the certiorari jurisdiction of the RTC, respondent should have waited for the MCTC to resolve the matters raised in the motion to quash. Since the records do not indicate any bar to filing such a motion, respondent's immediate resort to a petition for certiorari without availing of other reliefs provided by law rendered it an inappropriate remedy. The petition for certiorari filed with the RTC should have been dismissed outright. On the timeliness of the petition: Assuming, without conceding, that certiorari was the only available recourse, the Supreme Court found that the petition was filed out of time. Respondent filed the petition for certiorari on February 12, 2001, which was more than three months after the writ of execution was issued. The Court reiterated that the 60-day period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for filing a petition for certiorari is strict and considered inextendible, designed to avoid unreasonable delay and ensure speedy disposition of cases. The belated filing was deemed fatal to respondent's cause.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to annul an order of execution, as a motion to quash the order and writ of execution should first be filed with the lower court to give it an opportunity to correct its alleged errors. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari must be filed within the reglementary period of sixty (60) days from receipt of the assailed order.