Abrogar v. Land Bank of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Agerico and Carmelita Abrogar obtained a loan of P11,250,000.00 from Land Bank of the Philippines, secured by real estate and chattel mortgages. The spouses defaulted on their loan payments, prompting Land Bank to initiate extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged properties. To prevent the foreclosure, the Abrogars filed a complaint against Land Bank for specific performance and damages, seeking to compel the bank to allow them to settle their obligation under a proposed loan restructuring plan. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Abrogars' complaint for lack of cause of action, ruling that loan restructuring was a privilege, not a demandable right, and that the bank's refusal to accept their interpretation constituted a denial of their request. The RTC denied their motion for reconsideration. The Abrogars then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition, finding it to be the wrong mode of appeal and lacking an affidavit of service. The CA noted that an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 was the proper recourse and that even if treated as such, it was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Abrogars' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. 3. The Petition: The Spouses Abrogar filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's resolutions. They argued that the CA erred in dismissing their petition, contending that their former counsel's negligence in filing a certiorari petition instead of an ordinary appeal constituted gross negligence that deprived them of due process. They sought the liberal application of the rules to allow them to present their case on the merits. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, affirming the CA's ruling that certiorari was the wrong remedy and that the negligence of counsel generally binds the client, with no sufficient showing of malice or deprivation of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong mode of appeal. Whether the negligence of the former counsel in filing the wrong remedy should bind the clients, potentially depriving them of property without due process.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Resolutions dated June 23, 2014 and October 22, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R SP No. 134435 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the wrong mode of appeal: The Court reiterated the established rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy that may only be resorted to when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and cannot be used to correct errors of judgment when an ordinary appeal is available. In this case, the RTC Decision was rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, making an ordinary appeal under Section 2(a) of Rule 41 the proper recourse, not a petition for certiorari. Therefore, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for being the wrong mode of appeal. On the issue of counsel's negligence and due process: The Court affirmed the doctrine that the negligence of counsel binds the client, including mistakes in the application of procedural rules. The exception to this rule, where the client is deprived of due process, requires proof of palpable and maliciously exercised negligence by the counsel. The Spouses failed to allege or prove that their former counsel was motivated by malice in choosing to file a certiorari petition instead of an ordinary appeal. Their mere allegation of gross negligence, without any showing of malicious intent, was insufficient to warrant the relaxation of procedural rules. Thus, the negligence of their former counsel binds them, and the RTC Decision, having attained finality due to their failure to file a timely appeal, could no longer be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari may only be resorted to when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and will not prosper if an ordinary appeal is available, even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion.