International Exchange Bank v. Ayala Land
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ayala Land Inc. (ALI) entered into a Deed of Absolute Sale with Corporate Investment Philippines, Inc. (CIPI) on June 15, 2000, for two parcels of land in Baguio City. However, this sale was not immediately registered. Subsequently, International Exchange Bank (iBank) filed a collection case against CIPI and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment, leading to the levy of these same properties on May 18, 2001, as they were still registered under CIPI's name. CIPI was declared insolvent on March 8, 2002. Six months later, ALI registered its deed of sale, and new titles were issued in ALI's name, but these new titles carried over the annotations of the levy on attachment. Procedural History: Following the annotation of the levy on attachment on the new titles, ALI filed an action for Quieting of Title and/or Removal of Annotations with a prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against iBank and other respondents. iBank moved to dismiss ALI's action and opposed the injunction, arguing the levy was superior to the sale and that a notice of lis pendens was sufficient. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to dismiss and initially ordered the parties to maintain the status quo, but later granted ALI's application for a writ of preliminary injunction. iBank's motion for reconsideration was denied. Aggrieved, iBank filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the RTC's orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed iBank's petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. iBank's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner iBank filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. iBank argues that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals gravely abused their discretion in issuing and upholding the status quo order and the writ of preliminary injunction, respectively, without sufficient basis and by allegedly ascribing bad faith to iBank while exempting ALI from its own alleged bad faith and illegal acts. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy as iBank should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for such an appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing iBank's petition for certiorari, considering the availability of appeal under Rule 45. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the status quo order and the writ of preliminary injunction. Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy given that an appeal was available; specifically, whether the issues raised constitute errors of judgment or errors of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The Court held that the petition was filed using the wrong mode of appeal, as iBank should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 after the Court of Appeals denied its motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when filed beyond the reglementary period without justifiable explanation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the CA: The Court ruled that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy. Petitioner iBank received the Court of Appeals' resolution denying its Motion for Reconsideration on August 19, 2004. Its remedy should have been to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within 15 days from receipt of the resolution. Instead, iBank filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari 55 days after receipt of the resolution. The Court reiterated that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal that has been lost. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC: While the Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, it also implicitly affirmed the CA's finding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The CA found nothing whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious in the RTC's order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, noting that the RTC evaluated the evidence presented by both parties and found the requisites for its issuance to be present. The CA also found that the status quo order had become moot and academic with the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss was based on material issues, both legal and factual, which required further litigation on the merits of the case. On the distinction between errors of judgment and errors of jurisdiction, and the availability of certiorari: The issues raised by iBank, concerning the wisdom or legal soundness of the CA's decision, constitute errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari. The Court noted that while it has the discretion to treat a certiorari petition as a Rule 45 petition in the interest of justice, this is not warranted when filed beyond the reglementary period without justification.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Mere errors of judgment, which do not involve grave abuse of discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction, are not correctible by certiorari.