Lim v. Pacquing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Associated Development Corporation (ADC) was granted a franchise to operate a jai-alai in Manila through Ordinance No. 7065, enacted in 1971. ADC took preparatory steps to establish the jai-alai. However, Presidential Decree No. 771, issued in 1975, revoked the authority of local governments to grant such permits and canceled existing franchises. Later, Executive Order No. 169 repealed Presidential Decree No. 810, which had granted a franchise to another entity. Procedural History: In 1988, ADC sought to resume operations under its 1971 franchise, but its request was denied by the Mayor of Manila. ADC then filed a petition for mandamus and specific performance, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted, ordering the issuance of the necessary permit. The City of Manila appealed this decision, but later withdrew the appeal. The judgment became final and executory. Subsequently, the City of Manila filed several actions to annul the franchise, including a case questioning the validity of Ordinance No. 7065, which was dismissed. The City also filed a petition for declaratory judgment with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Despite these actions, the RTC, in response to a motion to compel, issued orders in 1994 directing the Mayor to issue the permit. The Petition: Petitioners, the Mayor of Manila and the City of Manila, filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the RTC's orders compelling the issuance of the jai-alai permit. They argued that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because Ordinance No. 7065 had been repealed by Presidential Decree No. 771 and that the execution of the judgment by motion was irregular as it fell outside the five-year period. The petition also questioned the validity of the original decision, claiming it was rendered without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, found no grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, noting that the issues raised could have been addressed in prior proceedings or appeals, and that the execution was timely.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for violation of Circular No. 28-91 and Revised Circular No. 1-88. Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to issue the questioned orders, considering that Ordinance No. 7065 was allegedly repealed by Presidential Decree No. 771. Whether the execution of the judgment by motion was irregular, having been filed beyond the five-year period from its entry or finality.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent judge. The orders of the RTC were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of Circular No. 28-91 and Revised Circular No. 1-88: The Court found no violation. The certification against forum shopping was adequate as it correctly stated that no similar action was pending. The affidavit on material dates sufficiently provided the necessary information for the Court to determine the timeliness of the petition for certiorari based on the dates of receipt of the questioned orders. On the jurisdiction of the RTC and the alleged repeal of Ordinance No. 7065 by P.D. No. 771: The Court held that petitioners failed to distinguish between a void and an erroneous judgment, and between jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, not the correctness of the decision. The RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter (mandamus and specific performance) and over the parties. Even if there was an error in judgment, it could not be corrected by certiorari. Furthermore, the issue of the repeal of Ordinance No. 7065 by P.D. No. 771 could have been raised as a defense in the original Civil Case No. 88-45660 but was not, leading to the principle of estoppel. The City of Manila had also waived this defense by previously issuing permits and collecting fees pursuant to the judgment. The Court also noted that the unilateral cancellation of a franchise, which has the status of a contract, without notice, hearing, and justifiable cause, is intolerable. On the regularity of the execution of judgment by motion: The Court clarified that the five-year period for execution by motion is counted from the date of entry or finality of the judgment. In this case, the judgment became final and executory after the withdrawal of the appeal on May 5, 1989, with entries of judgment on May 26, 1989, and October 27, 1992. The motion to compel the issuance of the permit was filed on March 14, 1994, which was well within the five-year period. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the withdrawal of the appeal meant the five-year period should be counted from an earlier date, stating that such rules do not affect the period for execution by motion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail orders of a Regional Trial Court that are alleged to have been issued with lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, even if such orders pertain to the execution of a final and executory judgment. An error of judgment, however, cannot be corrected by certiorari but by appeal. Furthermore, the principle of estoppel bars parties from raising the question of jurisdiction for the first time in a certiorari proceeding if they had previously participated in the proceedings without objection.