Pfleider v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner James S. Pfleider (Pfleider) and respondent Atty. Marie Luise Pfleider-Alba (Pfleider-Alba) are siblings and heirs of Fred G. Pfleider. Fred G. Pfleider mortgaged several properties to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). Pfleider-Alba volunteered to represent the heirs in dealing with PNB, with an agreement that siblings would contribute to amortization payments. Pfleider paid his share to Pfleider-Alba. Later, their mother learned of PNB's foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. The redemption period was extended. Pfleider-Alba allegedly informed Pfleider that all siblings had relinquished their properties to her and requested him to sign a Deed of Quitclaim, assuring him he would not be prejudiced. Pfleider later discovered that TCT No. T-207001, consolidating Lot No. 3829 (including his inherited share, Lot No. 3829-D), was registered in Pfleider-Alba's name, alleging fraud and violation of implied trust. Procedural History: Pfleider filed a Complaint against Pfleider-Alba and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental before the RTC of Kabankalan City, alleging fraud and violation of trust. Pfleider-Alba sought dismissal based on litis pendentia, citing Civil Case No. 00-11070 filed by her against Pfleider for Damages and Injunction before the RTC of Bacolod City, alleging the same issues and properties. The Register of Deeds asserted she performed her duty. The RTC, Kabankalan City, initially denied the motion for litis pendentia but later reconsidered and dismissed Pfleider's case, finding litis pendentia to exist. Pfleider's motion for reconsideration was denied. Pfleider appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Notice of Appeal. The Petition: The CA, in its assailed Decision and Resolution, dismissed Pfleider's appeal outright, holding that he availed of the wrong remedy because his appeal raised pure questions of law, which should have been filed as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Pfleider then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner's appeal outright, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by filing an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for review on certiorari. Whether the RTC, Kabankalan City, erred in finding that litis pendentia existed between Civil Case No. 1287 and Civil Case No. 00-11070.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari, affirming the CA's Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal outright, as the petitioner had availed of the wrong remedy. The Court also found that even if the petition were treated as a Rule 45 appeal, the CA's decision was correct, and the RTC's finding of litis pendentia was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper remedy and whether the CA committed reversible error: The Court reiterated the basic rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost ordinary appeal. Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not be entertained, even if the ground raised is grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that Pfleider had the available remedy of appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to question the CA's decision. A simple perusal of the instant Petition revealed that the ultimate issue raised was not jurisdictional but centered on the supposed errors of the CA in dismissing Pfleider's appeal outright. Mere errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari. Therefore, for this reason alone, the petition for certiorari was denied. Even assuming arguendo that the Court exercises liberality and treats the instant Petition for Certiorari as a Rule 45 appeal, the outcome remains the same, as the petition is unmeritorious. The Court found that the CA did not commit any error, much less grave abuse of discretion, in issuing the assailed Decision and Resolution. Under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the RTC to the CA involving only questions of law should be dismissed. Corollary thereto, Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court states that an appeal under Rule 41 taken from the RTC to the CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed. The CA correctly held that Pfleider's appeal raised pure questions of law, specifically concerning the application of the doctrine of litis pendentia. These issues did not call for an appreciation of the probative value of the evidence presented but merely the application of law and jurisprudence. Thus, the CA committed no error in dismissing the appeal outright in fealty to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. On the existence of litis pendentia (even if beyond the scope of review): The Court noted that while the petition was filed to question the CA's ruling, Pfleider discussed the validity of the RTC's finding of litis pendentia. The Court reiterated that errors of the CA, not the trial court, are the subject of review in a Rule 45 appeal. However, even disregarding this procedural limitation, the assertion that litis pendentia was wrongfully applied by the RTC is incorrect. Litis pendentia exists when there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. Civil Case No. 00-11070 and Civil Case No. 1287 involve the same parties. Although Civil Case No. 00-11070 was an action for Damages and Injunction, Pfleider's counterclaim for ownership over the same property in Civil Case No. 1287 made it share an identity of rights, reliefs, and causes of action. The issue of ownership over Lot No. 3829-D in Civil Case No. 1287 necessarily involves the ownership of Lot No. 3829, which was the subject of Civil Case No. 00-11070. Therefore, the RTC correctly dismissed Pfleider's Complaint on the ground of litis pendentia.
Main Doctrine
A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost ordinary appeal under Rule 45. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground raised is grave abuse of discretion. Mere errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.