Colmenares v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rosario Vda. de Gonzales and Homero S. Gonzales, through their respective heirs, initiated an ejectment case against Eduardo and Epifania Colmenares. The dispute stemmed from an oral lease agreement for several lots in Talisay, Cebu, which began in 1946. The lease, initially for a monthly rent of P150.00, was later increased. Arturo Colmenares, Eduardo's predecessor, managed a beach resort on the property. Following Arturo's death, Eduardo took over management and experienced financial difficulties, leading to a prior ejectment case for unpaid rentals, which he subsequently settled. Despite continued rent payments, the respondents eventually demanded the Colmenares family vacate the premises, alleging the lease terminated upon Arturo's death and that the Colmenares were not builders in good faith. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled that an oral lease agreement for an indefinite period existed, that the Colmenares were not builders in good faith, and fixed the lease period at twenty years with a monthly rent of P1,500.00, subject to annual increases. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the existence of the lease but reduced the lease period to ten years and increased the monthly rent to P5,000.00. After various motions and appeals, including a petition for review by some respondents to the Court of Appeals (CA) which was denied, the MTC granted a writ of execution. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, assailing the MTC's order for execution. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions that denied due course to their petition. The CA had denied the petition on two grounds: first, the petitioners violated the hierarchy of courts by directly filing a certiorari petition with the CA, bypassing the RTC's concurrent jurisdiction; and second, the petition failed to comply with the rules on verification and certification of non-forum shopping, as it was not signed by Epifania Colmenares. The Supreme Court noted the petitioners' procedural lapses and failure to comply with court orders, ultimately denying the petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying due course to the petition for certiorari for violation of the hierarchy of courts. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying due course to the petition for certiorari for non-compliance with the rules on verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Whether the decision of the Municipal Trial Court dated September 27, 1991, as modified by the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated June 13, 1994, became final and executory; and whether the levy on the property of petitioners is valid. Whether the decision of the Municipal Trial Court dated September 27, 1991, as modified by the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated June 13, 1994, can be executed after the period of ten (10) years from the date the decision was rendered; and whether verification of a pleading is jurisdictional.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The Order dated June 30, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court issuing a Writ of Execution is likewise affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the hierarchy of courts: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's denial of due course to the petition for certiorari. The Court emphasized that direct resort to a higher court, such as the CA, cannot be sanctioned when the remedy sought may equally be availed of in the RTC, which has concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against an MTC decision. Petitioners failed to show any justification for bypassing the RTC. This procedural lapse alone was sufficient ground for dismissal. On non-compliance with verification and certification against non-forum shopping: The Court sustained the CA's ruling on this ground as well. Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, explicitly requires a petition for certiorari to be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. The last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46 unequivocally states that failure to comply with these requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court found that Epifania Colmenares, one of the petitioners, failed to sign the verification and certification, rendering the petition defective. On the finality and executory nature of the decision and the validity of levy: While the petitioners raised issues regarding the finality and executory nature of the MTC and RTC decisions, and the validity of the levy, the Supreme Court noted that these were extraneous issues not passed upon by the CA. The Court reiterated that in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, it resolves only questions of law. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in denying due course to the petition based on procedural grounds, not the merits of the underlying ejectment case. On the executory nature of the decision after ten years and the jurisdictional nature of verification: Similar to the previous point, the Court found these issues to be factual matters that were not passed upon by the CA. The Court reiterated its stance that it is not a trier of facts in a Rule 45 petition and that the focus should remain on the procedural errors that led to the CA's denial of due course. The Court also implicitly rejected the notion that verification is jurisdictional in a manner that would override clear procedural rules and the established hierarchy of courts.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals, bypassing the Regional Trial Court which has concurrent jurisdiction, violates the rule on hierarchy of courts and is dismissible on that ground alone. Furthermore, failure to comply with the requirements of verification and certification against non-forum shopping is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.