De Lima v. Gatdula
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Magtanggol B. Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo against petitioners Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas, and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda. Gatdula sought to compel the petitioners to cease and desist from allegedly framing him for a fake ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frustrated Murder. The petition was directed against the National Bureau of Investigation officials. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Manila, instead of immediately ruling on the issuance of the Writ of Amparo, issued summons and ordered the petitioners to file an Answer. Despite the nature of Amparo cases requiring a Return, the RTC insisted on an Answer, citing suppletory application of the Rules of Court and the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure. The RTC proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case and required the filing of memoranda in lieu of responsive pleadings. On March 20, 2012, the RTC issued a "Decision" granting the Writ of Amparo and interim reliefs, including temporary protection, production, and inspection orders. A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners Secretary De Lima, et al. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, with a very urgent application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. They assail the RTC's "Decision" dated March 20, 2012, arguing it is not a final judgment appealable under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The petition highlights procedural irregularities by the RTC, including the erroneous requirement of an Answer instead of a Return, holding a hearing prior to the issuance of the writ, accepting memoranda in lieu of pleadings, and issuing an interlocutory order disguised as a decision. The petitioners seek to nullify the RTC's orders and direct the proper determination of the Amparo petition.
Issue(s)
Whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail the RTC's "Decision" dated March 20, 2012, which granted the privilege of the Writ of Amparo and interim reliefs. Whether the RTC judge committed procedural irregularities in handling the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to NULLIFY all orders issued by the RTC judge after respondent Gatdula filed the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo. The Court DIRECTED the RTC judge to determine within forty-eight (48) hours whether the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is proper based on the petition and its attached affidavits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Petition for Review on Certiorari: The Supreme Court held that the "Decision" dated March 20, 2012, granting the writ of Amparo and interim reliefs, is not the final judgment or order contemplated under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, which allows an appeal under Rule 45. The Court clarified that the "Decision" pertained to the issuance of the writ under Section 6, not the judgment under Section 18. Therefore, it was an interlocutory order, making a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 an improper remedy. The Court noted that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is prohibited. However, in the interest of justice and to prevent grave injustice, the Court opted to act on the petition, suspending its rules due to the procedural irregularities committed by the trial court judge. On the procedural irregularities committed by the RTC judge: The Supreme Court found several procedural irregularities. First, the insistence on filing an Answer instead of a Return was inappropriate, as the Return is the responsive pleading in Amparo cases, designed to provide a speedy remedy. The judge's reliance on the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure was misplaced, as this rule applies only to specific civil and criminal cases in lower courts and not to special proceedings like a writ of Amparo in an RTC. Second, holding a hearing on the main case prior to the issuance of the writ and the filing of a Return was irregular, as issues could not have been properly joined. Third, requiring a memorandum in lieu of a responsive pleading was also irregular, as a memorandum is a final pleading submitted before submission for decision, not a substitute for a responsive pleading. Fourth, the "Decision" itself was problematic as it granted "the privilege of the writ and the interim reliefs," which, while similar in phrasing to Section 18, was issued before the proper stage of judgment and lacked specific measures for execution, making it an interlocutory order. The Court emphasized that judicial responses in Amparo cases must be concrete and not merely symbolic.
Main Doctrine
A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail an interlocutory order granting the issuance of a Writ of Amparo and interim reliefs, as such order is not a final judgment. The proper remedy for procedural irregularities in the trial court's handling of an Amparo petition, especially when the order is interlocutory, may necessitate a different approach, potentially involving a certiorari under Rule 65, or direct intervention by the Supreme Court to correct grave errors and ensure the salutary purposes of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo are upheld.