Home Development Mutual Fund v. Spouses See
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent-spouses Fidel and Florinda See were the highest bidders in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of a property mortgaged to petitioner Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-ibig). They paid the bid price of ₱272,000.00 in cash to Sheriff Manuel L. Arimado, who acknowledged receipt. However, Sheriff Arimado misappropriated the funds for his personal use and failed to remit the payment to Pag-ibig. Consequently, Pag-ibig refused to surrender the certificate of title to the respondent-spouses despite the expiration of the redemption period. The respondent-spouses filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against Pag-ibig and Sheriff Arimado, arguing that payment to the sheriff, as the authorized agent in foreclosure proceedings, should be considered payment to Pag-ibig. Procedural History: The parties entered into a Compromise Agreement, approved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on October 31, 2001, which stipulated that Sheriff Arimado would pay the ₱272,000.00 to Pag-ibig by October 31, 2001. The agreement also stated that if Sheriff Arimado failed to pay, the issue of Pag-ibig's liability to release the title would be litigated. When Sheriff Arimado failed to comply, the RTC, on February 21, 2002, ruled in favor of the respondent-spouses, ordering Pag-ibig to release the title, reasoning that payment to the sheriff was valid. Pag-ibig's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 15, 2002. Despite receiving the denial on March 22, 2002, Pag-ibig filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 24, 2002, assailing the RTC's February 21, 2002 Decision. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari was an improper remedy as an appeal was available and the petition was filed out of time, and that the RTC's decision did not modify the compromise agreement. The Petition: Petitioner Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-ibig) filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's August 31, 2005 Decision and October 26, 2005 Resolution. Pag-ibig argues that the CA erred in denying due course to its petition for certiorari, contending that certiorari was the proper remedy because the RTC rendered its February 21, 2002 Decision without a trial and because that decision modified the earlier October 31, 2001 Decision, which had attained finality. Pag-ibig also argues that it was denied due process as no trial was conducted. The Supreme Court, however, found that certiorari was not the proper remedy as an appeal was available and Pag-ibig's own negligence led to the loss of its right to appeal, and that the petition was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. The Court further found no merit in the arguments that the RTC decision modified the compromise agreement or that a trial was necessary, as the facts were admitted and the issue was legal.
Issue(s)
Whether certiorari was the proper remedy and whether the petition was timely filed. Whether the February 21, 2002 Decision of the RTC modified its October 31, 2001 Decision based on the compromise agreement. Whether petitioner was entitled to a trial prior to the rendition of the February 21, 2002 Decision.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, denying the petition for review on certiorari. The Court held that certiorari was not the proper remedy because an appeal was available and Pag-ibig lost its right to appeal due to its own negligence. Furthermore, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Court also found no merit in the substantive arguments, stating that the RTC's February 21, 2002 Decision did not modify the October 31, 2001 Decision and that no trial was necessary given the admitted facts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari and timeliness of the petition: The Court reiterated that certiorari is a limited remedy of last resort, proper only when appeal is not available. In this case, the February 21, 2002 RTC Decision was appealable under Rule 41. Pag-ibig failed to explain why it did not appeal and instead allowed the decision to become final and executory, then resorted to a Rule 65 petition when the decision was already under execution. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss is due to the party's own negligence or error in choosing the remedy. This principle underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and deadlines to ensure the finality of judgments. Even if certiorari were considered, the petition was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Pag-ibig received the denial of its motion for reconsideration on March 22, 2002, meaning the petition should have been filed by May 21, 2002. The petition was filed on May 24, 2002, the 63rd day. The Court clarified that the period is counted from notice of the judgment or denial of the motion for reconsideration, not from receipt of the writ of execution, making Pag-ibig's argument regarding the writ's receipt irrelevant for timeliness computation. On whether the February 21, 2002 Decision modified the October 31, 2001 Decision: The Court found no merit in Pag-ibig's claim that the February 21, 2002 Decision modified the earlier decision. The October 31, 2001 Decision, based on the compromise agreement, explicitly stated that if Sheriff Arimado failed to pay, the issue of Pag-ibig's liability to release the title would continue to be litigated. The RTC, in its February 21, 2002 Decision, merely exercised the authority granted to it by the compromise agreement and the prior decision to resolve this specific issue. Therefore, the RTC did not modify its previous ruling but rather proceeded to implement the agreed-upon mechanism for resolving the remaining dispute. On the necessity of a trial: The Court held that Pag-ibig's argument that the February 21, 2002 Decision was issued without a trial was an afterthought and deserved scant consideration. Pag-ibig did not raise this objection in its motion for reconsideration, which was filed on the sole ground that it should not be compelled to release the title due to Sheriff Arimado's non-remittance. Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, objections not included in a motion are deemed waived. Furthermore, the RTC correctly reasoned that a full-blown trial was unnecessary because the material facts of the case were already admitted by Pag-ibig, and the February 21, 2002 Decision primarily addressed a legal issue based on these admitted facts.
Main Doctrine
A party that loses its right to appeal by its own negligence cannot seek refuge in the remedy of a writ of certiorari, nor can certiorari be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.