Sun Tun v. Mapa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In civil case No. 30642, the National Exchange Company, Inc. (NEC) obtained a judgment against Jose H. Katigbak and Gavino Barretto. In civil case No. 31998, Jose H. Katigbak obtained a judgment against Po Sun Suy and Po Ching. Jose H. Katigbak transferred his rights in the judgment from civil case No. 31998 to Po Sun Tun (petitioner). NEC filed civil case No. 33474 against Jose H. Katigbak and Po Sun Tun, alleging the transfer was fraudulent. This court affirmed the judgment in G.R. No. 31871, declaring the transfer fraudulent and ordering that property of Po Sun Suy and Po Ching liable in civil case No. 31998 be subject to the judgment obtained by NEC in civil case No. 30642. Procedural History: In civil case No. 33474, NEC moved for the clerk of court to deliver P909.16 deposited by Concepcion Martinez as partial payment for a judgment against her in civil case No. 33096. The court granted this motion on April 15, 1933. Po Sun Tun filed several motions for reconsideration, which were denied, but he did not appeal. Subsequently, in civil case No. 33096, NEC, though not a party, moved for the clerk of court to pay it P288 deposited by Concepcion Martinez to satisfy the judgment against her. The court granted this motion on August 19, 1933, and the clerk delivered the amount. Po Sun Tun also did not appeal this order. The Petition: Po Sun Tun filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to set aside the orders dated April 15 and August 19, 1933, arguing they were issued without jurisdiction as the judgment in civil case No. 33474 did not order Po Sun Tun to pay any sum of money to NEC, but merely rescinded the transfer of rights. He contended that the orders were, in effect, writs of execution that were untenable and null and void.
Issue(s)
Whether the orders dated April 15 and August 19, 1933, issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila, were null and void for having been issued without jurisdiction. Whether the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed within a reasonable time and without undue delay.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. The Supreme Court found that while the orders might be considered as issued without jurisdiction, the petitioner failed to diligently exercise his right to appeal and unduly delayed in filing the petition for certiorari, thereby forfeiting his right to the remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the orders dated April 15 and August 19, 1933, were by their nature writs of execution. It noted that the judgment in civil case No. 33474, which was affirmed on appeal, only declared the transfer of rights fraudulent and rescinded it. The judgment did not explicitly order Po Sun Tun to pay any sum of money to the National Exchange Company, Inc. Therefore, the Court agreed that the orders, which directed the payment of deposited sums to the National Exchange Company, Inc., were issued without the judgment in civil case No. 33474 providing a basis for such execution against Po Sun Tun. This indicated a potential lack of jurisdiction in issuing those specific orders. On Issue 2: Despite finding the orders potentially void for lack of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had the right to appeal the orders but lost this right due to his negligence in failing to do so. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner incurred unreasonable delay in filing the petition for certiorari, waiting more than four months from the latter order and more than eight months from the former, without any justifiable cause. The Court cited authorities stating that unreasonable delay or failure to apply for the writ within the time limited by statute or established practice is a good ground for refusing it, absent exceptional circumstances. The Court also noted that the respondent had already been in possession of the money for several months due to the petitioner's inaction.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a remedy for correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for an appeal, and a petitioner must demonstrate that they have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that unreasonable delay in filing a petition for certiorari, particularly when an appeal was available, is a valid ground for dismissing the petition.