Albay Electric Cooperative v. Santelices
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mayon International Hotel, Inc. (MIH) filed a complaint against Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ALECO), Edgardo A. San Pablo, and Evan Calleja for damages due to alleged illegal electric disconnection and extortion. MIH claimed that ALECO employees tampered with its electrical equipment to extort a substantial sum, calculated as a differential billing of P1,482,718.56, in violation of Republic Act No. 7832. ALECO, conversely, asserted that its employees discovered tampered seals and evidence of meter manipulation during a routine inspection at MIH's premises, leading to the discovery of the alleged illegal use of electricity. Procedural History: The case, Civil Case No. 9441, was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 2. Petitioners ALECO, San Pablo, and Calleja sought a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing several orders issued by RTC Judge Rafael P. Santelices. These orders pertained to the assignment of the case, the setting of a pre-trial conference, and the requirement for petitioners to reimburse MIH's counsel for expenses incurred due to a rescheduled pre-trial. Subsequently, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of ALECO, ordering MIH to pay substantial damages. MIH appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC decision with modifications, reducing the damages and deleting awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. This Court of Appeals decision became final and executory. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging that the RTC Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Specifically, they challenged the judge's alleged disregard of rules in assigning the case and setting the pre-trial conference, and the order requiring them to pay MIH's counsel for transportation and appearance fees. However, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed directly, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and that the issues raised had become moot and academic due to the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals and a subsequent waiver by MIH of its claim for reimbursement expenses.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Santelices acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in setting the pre-trial conference of Civil Case No. 9441 in disregard of procedural rules. Whether respondent Judge Santelices acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders dated November 12, 1997 and February 11, 1998, requiring petitioners to pay and reimburse respondent Mayon or its counsel for transportation expenses and court appearance fee.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being moot and academic. The Court found that the issues raised had become moot due to the final and executory Decision of the Court of Appeals in the main case and the waiver filed by Mayon International Hotel, Inc. before the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the pre-trial conference: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail interlocutory orders unless there is a patent and gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The assailed RTC Orders were merely resolutions on incidental matters that did not terminate the proceedings. The proper remedy against such orders is to continue with the case and, if an unfavorable verdict is rendered, to incorporate the grounds for assailing the interlocutory orders in the appeal. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle of hierarchy of courts, stating that direct resort to the Supreme Court for writs of certiorari is generally disallowed absent serious and important reasons, and that such petitions should initially be filed with the Court of Appeals. The final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in the main case rendered the procedural issue of the pre-trial conference moot and academic. On the issue of reimbursement orders: The Court noted that Mayon International Hotel, Inc. (MIH), in its Manifestation, waived its right or claim to the awarded transportation expenses and appearance fees and joined the petitioners in praying for the nullity of the orders. The Court held that rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a person with a right recognized by law. Since the awards were for the benefit of MIH, it was within its right to waive them. Given the lapse of time and the nominal amounts involved, MIH's waiver rendered the issue moot and academic, obviating the need for the Court to rule on the validity of the orders. The Court concluded that there was no longer a justiciable controversy for adjudication.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders is generally frowned upon, and such recourse is only proper when the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, direct resort to the Supreme Court is disallowed absent serious and important reasons, violating the principle of hierarchy of courts. Issues that have become moot and academic due to supervening events or waivers are no longer justiciable.