Producers Bank v. Excelsa Industries
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Excelsa Industries, Inc. obtained a loan from petitioner Producers Bank of the Philippines, secured by a real estate mortgage. The loan was later supplemented by a packing credit line, for which respondent presented drafts drawn under a letter of credit. The Korean buyer refused payment for the export documents, prompting the petitioner to demand payment from the respondent for the peso equivalent of these documents and outstanding loans. Upon respondent's failure to pay, petitioner foreclosed the mortgage extrajudicially, becoming the highest bidder. Procedural History: Respondent filed an action for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) consolidated these cases and, in a joint decision, upheld the validity of the foreclosure and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession. Respondent appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) via ordinary appeal for the annulment case and filed a special civil action for certiorari for the writ of possession case. The CA's First Division reversed the RTC decision in the ordinary appeal, declaring the foreclosure invalid. The CA's Tenth Division, in the certiorari case, also reversed the RTC decision, deeming the case moot but ruling on the merits. Petitioner is now before the Supreme Court assailing the CA's Tenth Division decision. The Petition: Petitioner Producers Bank of the Philippines seeks review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in not dismissing respondent's petition for certiorari on grounds of forum shopping, availability of other remedies (motion for reconsideration and appeal), and failure to allege grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner contends that even if the merits were considered, the petition lacked merit and was not supported by evidence, asserting that the consolidated nature of the cases and the nature of the writ of possession order precluded a Rule 65 certiorari petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of forum shopping. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the petition for certiorari as there was an available remedy of motion for reconsideration and appeal; and whether the petition for certiorari properly alleged that a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling on the merits of the petition for certiorari despite the procedural infirmities.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 46514. The parties are bound by the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 152071.
Ratio Decidendi
On forum shopping: The Court noted that respondent Excelsa availed of two modes of appeal for the same consolidated cases – an ordinary appeal for Civil Case No. 1587-A and a special civil action for certiorari for LR Case No. 90-787. This constituted forum shopping, as the cases had lost their separate identities after consolidation and joint decision by the RTC. The Court reiterated that consolidation is a procedural device to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, and when cases are consolidated and a joint decision is rendered, they become a single action, leaving parties with a single remedy to challenge the decision. On the propriety of the remedy and the allegations in the petition for certiorari: The Court held that respondent Excelsa committed a procedural blunder by filing a separate petition for certiorari before the CA. When the two cases (Civil Case No. 1587-A and LR Case No. 90-787) were consolidated and a joint decision was rendered by the RTC, they lost their separate identities. Consequently, the parties were left with a single remedy to elevate the issues to the appellate court. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail an order granting the issuance of a writ of possession. The proper remedy for a party aggrieved by an order granting a writ of possession is to file a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ, and then appeal from the order denying or granting said petition. When a writ of possession has already been issued, the proper remedy is an appeal, not a petition for certiorari. The trial court's order granting the writ of possession is final, and its soundness is a matter of judgment, with the remedy of the aggrieved party being an ordinary appeal. On the merits of the petition for certiorari: The Court found that the CA (Tenth Division) erred in rendering a decision on the merits of the petition for certiorari. The assailed decision substantially echoed the ruling of the CA (First Division) in CA-G.R. CV No. 59931, which had already been reviewed and resolved by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 152071. In G.R. No. 152071, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA (First Division) decision and reinstated the RTC decision, thereby settling the validity of the foreclosure and the propriety of the writ of possession. Therefore, the CA (Tenth Division) should have dismissed the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds, as the issues had already been definitively resolved by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail an order granting the issuance of a writ of possession; the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal. Furthermore, when cases are consolidated and a joint decision is rendered, the cases lose their separate identities, and the parties are left with a single remedy to elevate the issues to the appellate court.