Alimboboyog v. Noble-Noblefranca
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In October 1995, Paz Noble-Noblefranca initiated an action before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) against Inocencio Alimboboyog, seeking collection of rentals and ejectment with damages. Noblefranca claimed back rentals for her share as landowner from 1988 to 1995. Alimboboyog countered that he was no longer obligated to remit the landowner's share, asserting he had acquired the property by operation of law through a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) issued to his father. Procedural History: The Provincial Adjudicator initially ruled in favor of Noblefranca on December 5, 1996, ordering Alimboboyog to vacate the land and pay back rentals. Alimboboyog's Notice of Appeal was denied due course for being filed out of time, and a writ of execution was implemented, placing Noblefranca in possession. However, approximately four years later, the DARAB Central Office reversed the Provincial Adjudicator's decision, relaxing the rules to admit the appeal in the interest of agrarian justice. Noblefranca then challenged this reversal via a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, arguing the DARAB lacked jurisdiction over a case that had already become final. The Court of Appeals granted Noblefranca's petition, setting aside the DARAB's decision. The Petition: Inocencio Alimboboyog filed the instant Petition for Certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision, alleging it was rendered without jurisdiction due to improper service of pleadings and court orders. Alimboboyog claims Noblefranca deliberately omitted serving her petition for review on his counsel, instead serving him directly, thereby depriving him of his day in court. Noblefranca argues that a Rule 65 petition is improper as an appeal under Rule 45 was available and the period for filing had lapsed, and that the petition questions errors of judgment, not grave abuse of discretion. She also contends Alimboboyog actually received a copy of the petition filed with the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy when a motion for reconsideration was available but not filed. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in rendering its Decision dated March 12, 2004, due to alleged improper service of pleadings and court orders upon petitioner Alimboboyog, and the implications of the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) cancellation on his claim of ownership.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Certiorari is not the proper remedy when a motion for reconsideration was available and not filed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court reiterated the unquestioned rule that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the plain and adequate remedy was a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals. Alimboboyog admitted receiving a copy of the CA Decision and communicating its receipt to his counsel. However, instead of filing a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day period, he filed the present petition for certiorari. This failure to avail of the remedy of a motion for reconsideration, without any concrete, compelling, and valid explanation, deprived the appellate court of the opportunity to correct any errors in its decision and barred Alimboboyog from seeking relief via certiorari. The Court emphasized that filing a motion for reconsideration would have afforded the Court of Appeals the chance to review and purge its decision of any oversight, providing a more adequate and speedy remedy than the certiorari petition. On the alleged lack of jurisdiction due to improper service and the CLT issue: While the Court acknowledged that serving the petition for review on Alimboboyog himself instead of his counsel was a procedural flaw contrary to the rules and jurisprudence, it noted that Alimboboyog did not bring this matter to the attention of the Court of Appeals prior to filing the instant petition. Furthermore, the Court reviewed the substantive conclusions of the appellate court and found them to be in accord with the facts, law, and pertinent jurisprudence. Specifically, the Court clarified that a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) is not a muniment of title but merely evinces qualification for land acquisition, and its subsequent cancellation due to Noblefranca's property being exempt from Operation Land Transfer invalidates Alimboboyog's claim of full ownership.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy when a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision was available and not filed, as it constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Failure to avail of this remedy without a valid explanation bars recourse to certiorari.