Tible v. Royal Savings
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Tible & Tible Company, Inc. (TTCI) and Emilio G. Tible, Jr. obtained a loan from Royal Savings and Loan Association (RSLA) secured by chattel mortgages. TTCI failed to meet its projected capacity and could only pay a portion of the loan through dacion en pago. A compromise agreement was approved by the CFI, wherein TTCI admitted indebtedness and stipulated a payment schedule. Failure to pay any installment would make the whole obligation due and payable, entitling RSLA to immediate execution. Procedural History: TTCI defaulted on payments, leading RSLA to move for immediate execution, which was granted by the CFI. An alias writ of execution was subsequently issued, and a public auction sale of 23 parcels of land was conducted, with RSLA as the highest bidder. Years later, a final deed of sale was issued in favor of RSLA (now Comsavings Bank). Upon motion by Comsavings Bank, the RTC ordered the cancellation of titles and issuance of new ones in the bank's name. Petitioners filed an action for Annulment of Execution Sale, etc. The RTC in Naga City dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction. Petitioners refiled the complaint in Cavite City, which was docketed as Civil Case No. N-6619. The RTC dismissed the complaint for want of proof. Petitioners elevated the case to the CA via petition for review, but later withdrew it. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed it outright on procedural grounds: defective verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping, and lack of written explanation for service by mail. The CA also noted that certiorari was not the proper remedy, as an ordinary appeal was available. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of their certiorari petition.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners' proper remedy was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Whether the CA may relax the application of rules requiring verification and certification of non-forum shopping, as well as compliance with rules on service of pleadings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petition for certiorari as it was an improper remedy, and even if it were, the procedural defects were fatal to the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the proper remedy: The Court reiterated that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and cannot be availed of simultaneously or successively. An appeal under Rule 41 is the proper remedy from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of a case. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and it is directed against errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the RTC's dismissal of the complaint was a final order disposing of the case, making an ordinary appeal the appropriate recourse. The CA correctly dismissed the certiorari petition on this ground. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be used to correct errors of judgment when an appeal is available. On the procedural defects: Even assuming arguendo that certiorari was the proper remedy, the Court found that the procedural defects were fatal. The CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to the "Verification Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping" being signed by only one petitioner without a Special Power of Attorney, Board Resolution, or Secretary's Certificate authorizing her to sign on behalf of the others. Furthermore, there was no written explanation justifying service by mail instead of personal service, as required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The Court stressed that certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, requires strict observance of the rules, and subsequent compliance does not automatically cure the initial defect, especially in the absence of special circumstances or compelling reasons. The Court reiterated that procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities and must be followed to ensure the orderly administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and cannot be availed of simultaneously or successively. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that requires strict observance of procedural rules, and non-compliance with mandatory requirements such as verification and proper service can be fatal to a petition.