Fernandez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a criminal complaint for Grave Slander filed against petitioner Tessie A. Fernandez by respondent Salvio F. Arguelles. The incident occurred on November 21, 1997, when petitioner, a homeroom teacher, allegedly confronted respondent, the PTCA president, and uttered the words "Bullshit ka!" The prosecution contended that these acts were deliberate and malicious, stemming from respondent's prior testimony supporting the school principal against a teachers' strike. The defense claimed the remark was made out of disgust after respondent called the teachers, including petitioner, "radical people." Procedural History: The criminal case was initially filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City. After the presiding judge inhibited, the case was transferred to Branch 3. The MTCC acquitted petitioner on January 2, 2013, finding that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the alleged defamatory word was uttered in the heat of the moment. Respondent appealed the civil aspect to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC decision on July 31, 2014, holding that an acquittal based on reasonable doubt did not preclude civil liability. The RTC denied respondent's motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, respondent filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which, on December 12, 2016, reversed the RTC and awarded moral and exemplary damages to respondent. The CA later granted respondent's motion for partial reconsideration, adding attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner Tessie A. Fernandez filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the December 12, 2016 Decision and the May 25, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. She argued that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the rulings of the lower courts and awarding damages and attorney's fees to the respondent. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petitioner availed herself of the wrong remedy, as the proper recourse to question a CA decision is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was filed out of time, exceeding the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 45 petition, and dismissed the case accordingly.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court in Cities, thereby awarding moral and exemplary damages to the private respondent, considering the propriety of filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding private respondent with attorney's fees, and the basis for such an award.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated December 12, 2016 and the Resolution dated May 25, 2017 issued by the Twenty-Third Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No. 06654-MIN are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Petition for Certiorari and the award of damages: The Supreme Court held that petitioner availed herself of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the CA's judgment, as the proper remedy is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court emphasized that the invocation of substantial justice is not a magic potion that automatically compels the Court to set aside technical rules, and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be a substitute for a lost remedy of an ordinary appeal. Although the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, the Court affirmed the CA's Decision and Resolution regarding damages. The CA had found that the MTCC's acquittal of the petitioner was based on reasonable doubt, not on a finding that the act was not committed. Consequently, the CA ruled that the preponderance of evidence warranted the award of damages to the respondent under Article 21 of the Civil Code, and specifically moral damages under Article 2219 and exemplary damages under Article 2229. On the award of attorney's fees: The CA awarded attorney's fees based on Article 2208 of the Civil Code, considering the award of exemplary damages.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45, especially when the reglementary period for filing the latter has already expired without justification. The invocation of substantial justice does not automatically excuse non-compliance with strict procedural rules, particularly reglementary periods, which are jurisdictional.