Pilipino Telephone v. Radiomarine Network
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a Contract to Sell executed on December 12, 1996, between Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PILTEL) and Radiomarine Network, Inc. (RADIOMARINE). Under this contract, RADIOMARINE agreed to purchase a 3,500-square meter lot in Makati City from PILTEL for P560,000,000.00. The payment terms included a down payment of P180,000,000.00, with the remaining balance to be paid by April 30, 1997. A contemporaneous letter from PILTEL expressed its willingness to purchase cellular phone units and accessories from RADIOMARINE, which RADIOMARINE considered a material part of the agreement. RADIOMARINE failed to pay the balance, alleging PILTEL reneged on its commitment to purchase the cellular phone units. PILTEL later returned P50,000,000.00 of the down payment. Procedural History: RADIOMARINE filed a complaint against PILTEL seeking rescission of the contract or partial specific performance, and damages. PILTEL opposed RADIOMARINE's motion for partial summary judgment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 57, granted the motion, ordering PILTEL to return the down payment less certain forfeited amounts, with interest. PILTEL's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, RADIOMARINE moved for execution pending appeal, which the RTC granted. PILTEL filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's resolutions. The CA dismissed PILTEL's petition, ruling that an appeal, not certiorari, was the proper remedy, and that the summary judgment had become final as other causes of action were withdrawn. PILTEL also filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. The CA later denied PILTEL's motion for reconsideration of its dismissal order, citing forum shopping. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to annul the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing PILTEL's petition for certiorari and denying its motion for reconsideration. PILTEL argues that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy from a partial summary judgment, contending that such judgments are interlocutory and not immediately appealable. PILTEL also disputes the CA's finding of forum shopping, asserting that its certiorari petition and subsequent appeal raised different issues and sought different reliefs. PILTEL further contends that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the partial summary judgment and that it did not engage in forum shopping by pursuing both remedies simultaneously.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner PILTEL is guilty of forum shopping. Whether grave abuse of discretion attended the trial court's issuance of a summary judgment. Whether the petition for certiorari was properly dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that PILTEL was guilty of forum shopping, that certiorari was not the proper remedy, and that the petition for certiorari was correctly dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court found that PILTEL engaged in forum shopping by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals and subsequently filing a notice of appeal on the same subject matter and seeking substantially the same reliefs. The Court noted the identity of parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought in both the certiorari petition and the appeal. The Court emphasized that forum shopping constitutes an abuse of court processes and that the availability of appeal generally precludes resort to certiorari. The Court cited the case of Ley Construction and Development Corporation v. Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation to support its conclusion that the petition for certiorari was superseded by the appeal and thus rendered moot and academic, and that pursuing both remedies constituted forum shopping. On whether grave abuse of discretion attended the granting of summary judgment: The Court ruled that a petition for certiorari is not a proper remedy to assail the propriety of a summary judgment unless there was a jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in rendering the partial summary judgment and that any alleged errors in its appreciation of facts and pleadings were errors of judgment, not reviewable by certiorari but by appeal. The Court cited Rizal Security & Protective Services, Inc v. Maraan and Apostol v. Court of Appeals to support this principle. On whether the petition for certiorari was properly dismissed by the Court of Appeals: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal. It reiterated that certiorari is not available when an appeal is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court noted that the trial court's summary judgment, after the withdrawal of other causes of action, became a final order disposing of the entire case, making it appealable. The Court also pointed out that the petition for certiorari had become moot and academic due to subsequent events, including the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal and its satisfaction, and the filing of the appeal itself. The Court cited Monterey Foods Corporation v. Eserjose to distinguish when a partial summary judgment is appealable.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of a petition for certiorari, holding that certiorari is not a proper remedy to question a summary judgment when an appeal is available, as certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment. The Court also found that the petitioner engaged in forum shopping by filing both a petition for certiorari and a notice of appeal concerning the same orders and issues, which constitutes an abuse of court processes. The availability of an appeal, being a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, renders the remedy of certiorari unavailable.