Mandy Commodities Co. v. International Commercial Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mandy Commodities Co., Inc. obtained a loan from respondent The International Commercial Bank of China, secured by deeds of chattel mortgage over twenty-five (25) units of two-storey concrete buildings. The parties explicitly agreed to consider these buildings as chattels, subject to chattel mortgage under the law. Upon petitioner's default, respondent initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the buildings under the chattel mortgage agreements. The sale was conducted, and respondent emerged as the highest bidder. Subsequently, respondent filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession pending redemption, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted, ordering the issuance of the writ. Procedural History: Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing that the foreclosure sale was null and void for non-compliance with the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508), specifically the requirement of a 10-day personal notice to the mortgagor, and that the RTC erred in issuing a writ of possession under Act No. 3135, which it claimed was inapplicable. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner's subsequent petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 146929) was dismissed for violating the hierarchy of courts. Petitioner then filed a petition for annulment of the RTC orders before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process. The CA affirmed the RTC's order, ruling that while the foreclosure sale might have procedural infirmities under the Chattel Mortgage Law, annulment was not the proper remedy. The Petition: Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, insisting on the nullity of the RTC's order and the CA's affirmation thereof, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the RTC's order granting the writ of possession. Whether the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 is proper when an ordinary appeal was available but not availed of; and whether the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 was the proper remedy to set aside the RTC's orders.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition for certiorari is dismissed for being the wrong remedy and for failure to sufficiently demonstrate grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The CA correctly dismissed the petition for annulment because it was procedurally infirm. The CA's affirmation of the RTC's order was based on sound legal reasoning regarding the proper remedies available to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the CA acted capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily in rendering its decision. The issues raised by the petitioner pertained to the wisdom or legal soundness of the CA's decision, not its jurisdiction to render it, which are beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. On the propriety of remedies: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy of last resort, available only when an appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy may no longer be pursued. In this case, an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 was available to petitioner from the Court of Appeals' decision on the petition for annulment. Petitioner received the CA's resolution denying reconsideration on September 21, 2004, and failed to file an appeal within the prescribed fifteen-day period. Therefore, the instant petition for certiorari was a substitute for a lost appeal, which is impermissible. The Court cited Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank to emphasize that certiorari cannot be used to substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss was due to the petitioner's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 was not the proper remedy to set aside the RTC's orders. Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy available only when ordinary remedies like appeal are no longer viable, and it is limited to grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. Petitioner's arguments, which alluded to several alleged errors committed by the RTC in issuing its orders, indicated that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. These alleged errors were merely errors of judgment, correctible by an ordinary appeal, not by a petition for annulment. The issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court once it has acquired jurisdiction over the application.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss was due to the petitioner's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies. Furthermore, the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy available only when ordinary remedies are no longer viable, and it is limited to grounds of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, not mere errors of judgment.