Fajardo v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Four civil cases for damages were filed by the heirs of four victims who died in a vehicular accident along the North Expressway. The cases were filed against Perfecto Dacasin, the driver, and Marcial Fajardo, the owner, of a truck that allegedly sideswiped the jeep carrying the victims. A criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property was also filed against Dacasin. The criminal and civil cases were consolidated and tried jointly. The trial court found Dacasin guilty in the criminal case, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. SPO2 Romulo M. Bagsic testified that he responded to a vehicular accident and found four victims dead, their jeep in a canal, and a six-wheeler truck on its side with a portion of the jeep attached to it. Based on the location of the vehicles, bodies, debris, and skid marks, Bagsic concluded the jeep was sideswiped by the truck. He found a gasoline receipt in the truck's compartment indicating ownership by M. Fajardo, whom petitioner Marcial Fajardo acknowledged as the owner of the truck. Bagsic's investigation report was based on the scene, but the truck disappeared from the scene before it could be fully processed. Dacasin and Fajardo denied their truck was involved, claiming their truck met an accident by falling into a hole on the expressway around 4:00 p.m. on the same day, and that Dacasin left the scene at 5:00 p.m. Dacasin admitted not responding to a subpoena and claimed he was forced to sign a Sinumpaang Salaysay. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both petitioner Fajardo and Dacasin liable for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, adjudging double costs against them. The Petition: Petitioner Marcial Fajardo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. He contended that the appellate court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by affirming the RTC's decision, arguing that the findings were based on conjectures as there was no eyewitness, that the sole witness's testimony was given undue credence, that the award of damages was unwarranted and excessive, and that it was not his truck involved in the incident. Alternatively, he argued that even if it was his truck, he should be absolved due to exercising due diligence and not being in the truck at the time.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the trial court's decision. Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy, considering the failure to file a motion for reconsideration. Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy, as opposed to a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; and the implied agreement with lower courts' findings on the merits of the case.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated January 31, 2003, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48419 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On grave abuse of discretion: The Court clarified that for an act to be considered as grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65, it must be patent and gross, characterized by arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, or a whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power amounting to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty. The assailed Court of Appeals' decision, even if erroneous in admitting evidence or giving weight to testimony, involved a mere error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Such errors are beyond the province of a Rule 65 certiorari petition. On the failure to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before resorting to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. This rule affords the court or tribunal an opportunity to correct its errors. While exceptions exist, none were present in this case. The petitioner received the Court of Appeals' decision on February 12, 2003, but filed the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on April 14, 2003, without filing a motion for reconsideration or explaining why it was not filed or why the case was exceptional. This failure to afford the Court of Appeals an opportunity to rectify alleged errors was fatal to the petition. On the propriety of the remedy (Rule 65 certiorari vs. Rule 45 review) and the merits of the case (implied): The Supreme Court held that petitioner adopted the wrong remedy. Decisions of the Court of Appeals are generally appealable to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action that lies only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and it specifically requires proof of grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the liberal construction of the Rules should not be a remedy for all procedural maladies, and wanton disregard of procedural rules will not be tolerated. Although the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, the Court implicitly agreed with the lower courts' findings by affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The petitioner's arguments regarding lack of eyewitnesses, reliance on the investigator's testimony, excessive damages, and denial of ownership were issues of fact and judgment, not jurisdiction, which should have been raised through a proper Rule 45 petition after exhausting the remedy of a motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a decision of the Court of Appeals when a motion for reconsideration was not filed, absent any exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the appropriate remedy to appeal decisions of the Court of Appeals, not a Rule 65 certiorari, unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is alleged and proved.