Tagle v. Equitable Philippine Commercial International Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfredo Tagle claims that a property registered in his name, which he constituted as a Family Home with his wife, was mortgaged to respondent Equitable PCI Bank (E-PCI) not by him, but by his deceased brother, Josefino Tagle. Petitioner asserts that he was compelled to assume Josefino's outstanding mortgage obligation and was making installment payments when E-PCI foreclosed the mortgage. Conversely, E-PCI contends that the property was mortgaged by Alfredo Tagle himself, through a Special Power of Attorney, to secure the obligation of Josefino and Emma Tagle. E-PCI states that after foreclosure and the expiration of the redemption period, title to the property was consolidated in its name. Procedural History: Following the consolidation of title in its name, E-PCI filed a Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession. Petitioner Alfredo Tagle then filed a Motion to Stop Writ of Possession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that the property is a Family Home and thus exempt from execution. The RTC denied this motion, holding that the mortgage transaction occurred in 1997, after the Family Code's effectivity, and therefore did not fall under the exemptions. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which the CA dismissed for failing to attach essential documents, namely the RTC order denying the motion to stop the writ and the motion itself. Petitioner's subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner Alfredo Tagle filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to annul the CA's resolutions. He argues that the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing his petition and that the subject property, being a family home, is exempt from foreclosure. E-PCI counters that the petition is procedurally flawed, citing untimeliness, failure to allege grave abuse of discretion, lack of proper verification, and the prohibition against a second motion for reconsideration filed with the CA. E-PCI also argues that a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for Certiorari under Rule 65, was the proper remedy, as the CA's resolutions were final orders and not interlocutory. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that petitioner had availed himself of the wrong remedy and had failed to file his appeal within the reglementary period.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court is the proper remedy to assail the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner Alfredo Tagle's petition for certiorari, and whether the failure to file the correct remedy within the reglementary period can be excused.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy and for failure to sufficiently show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The three Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 6 September 2005, 16 February 2006 and 11 April 2006, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461, are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. With costs against petitioner Alfredo Tagle. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and requires that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner Alfredo Tagle's petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 were final dispositions of the case. Therefore, the proper remedy available to petitioner Alfredo Tagle was to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, which is an appeal from a final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals. The availability of an appeal under Rule 45 barred the resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court emphasized that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and cannot be used interchangeably, especially when an appeal is available. On the dismissal of the petition and failure to file the correct remedy within the reglementary period: The Court noted that petitioner Alfredo Tagle erred in filing a Petition for Certiorari instead of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Furthermore, he made a critical mistake by waiting for the Court of Appeals to resolve his second motion for reconsideration before pursuing an appeal. The reglementary period to file an appeal is 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order, or of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. A second motion for reconsideration is not allowed and does not toll the period to appeal. Petitioner Alfredo Tagle's failure to file his appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Court of Appeals' resolution denying his first motion for reconsideration rendered the resolution final and executory, depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify a relaxation of the rules, nor did petitioner Alfredo Tagle provide any explanation for his failure to comply with the procedural requirements.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail final resolutions of the Court of Appeals; an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is the appropriate remedy. Failure to file the correct remedy within the reglementary period, especially when occasioned by filing a second motion for reconsideration, bars the appeal.