Mauleon v. Porter
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Lolina Moran Porter filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Remedios M. Mauleon, seeking possession of a property in Caloocan City. Respondent claimed to be the absolute owner, having purchased the property from petitioner and her husband via a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on August 28, 2007. Despite the sale, petitioner continued to occupy the property through respondent's tolerance. After respondent's demands to vacate, including a letter dated November 3, 2008, were refused, and petitioner failed to pay rent at P10,000.00 per month from September 2007, respondent initiated an unlawful detainer suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) after barangay settlement failed. Procedural History: Petitioner raised defenses, including the non-joinder of her husband and the pendency of a related annulment of documents and reconveyance case. During the preliminary conference on March 27, 2009, petitioner failed to appear, leading the MeTC to grant respondent's motion for judgment. The MeTC subsequently ordered petitioner to vacate and pay attorney's fees. Petitioner's subsequent motions before the MeTC were denied, and respondent's motion for execution was granted. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to nullify the MeTC's decision and execution order, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The RTC dismissed the certiorari petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion and holding that the pendency of the annulment case did not abate the ejectment suit. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's appeal, affirming the RTC's dismissal of the certiorari petition. The CA found that certiorari was an inappropriate remedy and that the MeTC had jurisdiction. It also held that the pendency of the annulment case did not frustrate ejectment and that petitioner was not deprived of due process, being bound by her counsel's negligence. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in upholding the dismissal of her certiorari petition. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal of petitioner's certiorari petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of petitioner’s certiorari petition. Whether the MeTC Decision and the Order granting its execution were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and whether petitioner was deprived of her right to due process. Whether the pendency of the annulment of documents and reconveyance case was determinative of the ejectment case. Whether the MeTC Decision became final and executory, rendering it immutable and unalterable. Whether petitioner is bound by the negligence of her counsel.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's certiorari petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court clarified that while an order of execution is generally not appealable, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy if the execution is alleged to have been issued with grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the petitioner properly availed of certiorari before the RTC, contrary to the CA's initial finding that she should have appealed. On grave abuse of discretion and due process: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC in rendering judgment and ordering execution. Petitioner and her counsel failed to appear at the mandatory preliminary conference despite notice. Her motion for postponement was filed late and after the MeTC had already submitted the case for decision. The Court emphasized that the use of "shall" in the Rules on Summary Procedure makes attendance mandatory, and non-appearance is only excusable with a justifiable cause, which was absent here. Petitioner's claim of denial of due process was dismissed, as she was afforded the opportunity to be heard, and she was bound by her counsel's actions. On the pendency of the annulment case: The Court reiterated that the pendency of a prior case for annulment of documents and reconveyance does not abate an ejectment suit nor bar the execution of a judgment therein. Ejectment cases primarily involve the issue of possession de facto, and the MeTC retained jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case despite the pending annulment case. On the immutability of judgments: The Court stressed that once a decision has attained finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The MeTC Decision became final and executory as petitioner failed to appeal. Consequently, the issuance of the writ of execution was a ministerial duty of the court, and the Court was precluded from re-examining the merits of the final MeTC Decision. On the negligence of counsel: The Court affirmed the general rule that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of their counsel. Petitioner could not seek refuge under the exception for gross negligence because she was not deprived of her day in court, having filed an Answer. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and failure to comply with the rules for perfecting an appeal results in its loss. Therefore, petitioner was bound by her counsel's failure to file a timely appeal.
Main Doctrine
The failure to appear at a mandatory preliminary conference without justifiable cause, despite notice, can lead to a rendition of judgment against the non-appearing party. A client is generally bound by the negligence of their counsel, and the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law.