Samson v. Fiel-Macaraig
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Benedicta M. Samson and Marcial M. Samson obtained a P10,000,000 loan from Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTC), secured by a mortgage on four parcels of land. Upon petitioners' failure to meet the loan terms, FEBTC initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings. The initial auction sale scheduled for June 8, 2000, was postponed due to having only one bidder. Subsequently, on June 29, 2000, the mortgaged properties were sold at public auction to FEBTC as the highest bidder. 2. Procedural History: Almost two years after the auction, on June 4, 2002, petitioners filed a case for the annulment of the extra-judicial foreclosure and sale, along with damages and a prayer for injunctive relief, against various respondents including the RTC Judge, BPI, FEBTC, the Clerk of Court, and the Register of Deeds. The RTC of Marikina City dismissed the application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction on December 20, 2002. Subsequently, on June 20, 2003, the RTC dismissed the entire complaint for failure to prosecute. After the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration, petitioners appealed. However, Benedicta and Marcial Samson, instead of appealing, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on February 10, 2004. 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari, ruling that a writ of certiorari was not the proper remedy as an appeal was available, and that petitioners failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their certiorari petition. They contended that the RTC Judge gravely abused her discretion by dismissing the case for failure to prosecute while a responsive pleading from one of the defendants was still pending, and also questioned the validity of the second public auction for alleged lack of posting and publication. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, including the impact of the Ex-Officio Sheriff's failure to file an answer. Whether the second public auction sale was valid.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated 28 September 2004 and Resolution dated 15 December 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 82114 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari lies only for an error of jurisdiction, meaning the lower tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Crucially, it can only be availed of if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Where the error is one of law or fact, which constitutes a mistake of judgment, certiorari is not available; the proper remedy is appeal. In this case, the RTC Order dated June 20, 2003, dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute, was a final judgment that disposed of the case on the merits. Such a judgment is subject to an ordinary appeal, not a petition for certiorari. The subsequent order denying the motion for reconsideration further solidified its finality, and the RTC itself clarified that the dismissal was 'with prejudice' or had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. On grave abuse of discretion and the failure to file an answer: Even assuming, arguendo, that certiorari was the proper remedy, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the RTC Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The RTC Order dismissing the case was issued in accordance with Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 1, Rule 18, which mandates the plaintiff to promptly move for pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed. The dismissal was for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. There was no showing that the judge acted in a despotic, capricious, or arbitrary manner, or was motivated by passion or personal hostility. Grave abuse of discretion requires a showing of capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which was absent here. The Court agreed with the private respondent that the failure of the Ex-Officio Sheriff to file her Answer should not have prevented the petitioners from fulfilling their duty to move for pre-trial. Petitioners could have filed a motion to declare the Ex-Officio Sheriff in default to avoid unnecessary delays. This demonstrates that the dismissal for failure to prosecute was a consequence of the petitioners' inaction, not an arbitrary act of the court. On the validity of the auction sale: The Court noted that the other issues raised by the petitioners, including the validity of the second public auction sale for alleged lack of posting and publication, involved questions of fact. These factual issues were not proper subjects for a petition for certiorari, especially when the primary issue was the propriety of the remedy itself and the alleged grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. The Court's focus remained on the procedural aspects and the correctness of the appellate court's ruling on the remedy sought.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail a final judgment that disposes of the case on the merits, especially when the remedy of appeal is available. The availability of the right to appeal precludes recourse to the special civil action for certiorari. Furthermore, for certiorari to lie on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, it must be shown that the lower court acted in a despotic, capricious, or whimsical manner, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.