Dy Chiao v. Bolivar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute stems from a March 31, 1999 decision by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 44261, which declared the petitioner, Mary Jane G. Dy Chiao, subsidiarily liable to pay P5,711,164.00. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court and attained finality. Subsequently, execution proceedings were initiated, and a writ of execution was issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, in Naga City, directing the respondent sheriff to levy and sell the petitioner's properties to satisfy the judgment debt, as the principal obligor, Benedick Arevalo, had no leviable assets. Procedural History: Following the issuance of the writ of execution on June 12, 2008, the respondent sheriff proceeded with the public auction of two of the petitioner's parcels of land on November 21, 2008, for P8,000,000.00. The respondent sheriff then issued a notice of levy on March 10, 2009, for two other parcels of the petitioner's land. To prevent further execution proceedings, the petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction before the RTC, Branch 23, in Naga City. This case was dismissed by the RTC for lack of jurisdiction, as the execution proceedings were deemed to be part of the original civil case pending before RTC, Branch 19. After the denial of her motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a verified petition for review on certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA denied the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a verified petition for review on certiorari, citing Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 and Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which mandate that appeals involving purely questions of law must be filed directly with the Supreme Court. The CA declared the case closed and terminated. The petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in denying her motion for extension and in dismissing the case, and also questioning the RTC's dismissal of her petition for prohibition on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner seeks review of these decisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) properly denied the petitioner's motion for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari on the ground that it should have been filed before the Supreme Court, despite the principle of hierarchy of courts. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) properly dismissed the petitioner's petition for prohibition for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Appeals and denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the CA's denial of the motion for extension: The Supreme Court held that the CA correctly denied the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari. The petitioner's manifest intention to limit her appeal to questions of law indicated that the proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, as provided under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. An appeal raising only questions of law brought to the CA instead of the Supreme Court is an erroneous appeal and shall be dismissed pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to perfect her appeal from the dismissal by the RTC (Branch 23) within the reglementary period, rendering the dismissal final and immutable. Therefore, her subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was a futile attempt to resurrect a lost appeal. On the issue of the RTC's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the case by RTC (Branch 23). The Court reasoned that the actions and processes undertaken by the respondent sheriff to levy the petitioner's properties were considered proceedings within the same civil action assigned to RTC (Branch 19), which had issued the writ of execution. These proceedings were incidents of the execution of a final and executory decision and remained under the exclusive control of RTC (Branch 19). Allowing the action before RTC (Branch 23) would disregard the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference, which prohibits courts of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction from interfering with each other's judgments or decrees. The Court clarified that even if the action was directed against the sheriff, it effectively enjoined the enforceability of the writ issued by RTC (Branch 19), thus constituting an undue interference. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner was to assail the implementation of the writ before the issuing court (RTC Branch 19) or seek redress from a superior court after an adverse ruling from the issuing court.
Main Doctrine
A losing party cannot seek relief from the execution of a final judgment by bringing a separate action to prevent the execution of the judgment against her by the enforcing sheriff, as such action contravenes the policy on judicial stability. The relief should be sought in the same court that issued the writ of execution.