Chang v. Choi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Korean Christian Businessmen Association, Inc., publisher of the Korean language newspaper Korea Post, and its incorporator, Chang Ik Jin, were sued by respondent Choi Sung Bong. The lawsuit alleged that the Korea Post published defamatory articles against Choi in its April 25 and May 9, 1998 issues. The complaint also asserted that the publication of Korea Post violated constitutional provisions barring foreigners from engaging in mass media and that the Korean Christian Businessmen Association, Inc. was prohibited by its Articles of Incorporation from engaging in mass media. Procedural History: Respondent Choi Sung Bong filed a complaint for injunction and damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, seeking to stop the publication of Korea Post. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and subsequently a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining the petitioners from publishing the newspaper. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the RTC later denied. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to nullify the RTC's TRO and writ of preliminary injunction. The CA issued a TRO enjoining the RTC from implementing its order and later reversed the RTC's orders, dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction and remanding the case for further proceedings. Petitioners sought reconsideration, arguing that the CA should have dismissed the case, but the CA denied this. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking review on certiorari of the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA erred in denying their motion for partial reconsideration and/or supplemental petition, and in holding that addressing other issues raised by them would constitute acting ultra juris. Specifically, they contend that the CA should have ruled on the issues of prescription, failure to state a cause of action, and improper venue, which were raised in their initial petition to the CA. The core of their argument is that the CA's finding that the RTC should have resolved the Motion to Dismiss before issuing the injunction was mooted by the RTC's subsequent denial of the Motion to Dismiss, and therefore, the CA could have determined the merits of their claims.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling on the issues of prescription, failure to state a cause of action, and improper venue raised by the petitioners. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Supplemental Petition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioners' procedural shortcut of raising the denial of their Motion to Dismiss via a motion for partial reconsideration of the CA's decision on the preliminary injunction was improper and that the reglementary period to file a separate certiorari petition had lapsed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling on the issues of prescription, failure to state a cause of action, and improper venue: The Court found no reversible error committed by the CA. The CA correctly ruled that it could not pass upon the issues of prescription, failure to state a cause of action, and improper venue because these were raised in the Motion to Dismiss, which had not yet been resolved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at the time the petition for certiorari was filed with the CA. To rule on these issues would have meant disposing of the main case without trial and pre-judging the merits of the complaint, which was beyond the scope of a certiorari petition assailing the propriety of a preliminary injunction. The CA's finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction without first resolving the Motion to Dismiss was a valid ground for certiorari, separate from the merits of the Motion to Dismiss itself. The CA's subsequent remand of the case for further proceedings was therefore appropriate, as the primary issue before it was the validity of the injunction, not the ultimate dismissal of the complaint. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Supplemental Petition: The Court held that petitioners' attempt to have the CA review the RTC's Order dated September 11, 2003, denying their Motion to Dismiss, through a motion for partial reconsideration of the CA's decision on the injunction was procedurally flawed. The ordinary procedure after the denial of a Motion to Dismiss is to file an Answer and proceed to trial, or, if the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, to file a separate petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within the 60-day reglementary period. Petitioners received the RTC's denial order on September 25, 2003, giving them until November 25, 2003, to file a certiorari petition. Instead, they waited until after the CA issued its decision on November 27, 2003, and then attempted to raise the issue of the denial of the Motion to Dismiss via a motion for partial reconsideration filed on December 19, 2003. This procedural shortcut, which effectively sought to extend the period to assail the RTC's denial order, could not be countenanced. The CA correctly denied the motion as it was filed out of time and through an improper procedural vehicle.
Main Doctrine
A party seeking to assail an order denying a motion to dismiss via certiorari must file a separate petition within the reglementary period, and cannot raise it through a motion for partial reconsideration of an appellate court's decision on a different matter.