Mayol v. Blanco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves a conjugal misunderstanding between spouses Jacinto Mayol and Sabina Blanco, leading to their separation. The case concerns the partition of property and associated costs. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner, Jacinto Mayol, sought a writ of certiorari to set aside an order from the Court of First Instance of Cebu. This order approved a project of partition submitted by court-appointed commissioners. Mayol had filed a motion for reconsideration of this order, arguing it was unjust, inequitable, that he lacked proper notification, and that the order for him to bear all partition expenses was outrageous. This motion for reconsideration had not yet been decided at the time of the certiorari petition. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking to overturn the Court of First Instance's order approving the partition. However, the petition was deemed premature and improper because an appeal was still possible, and a motion for reconsideration was pending. The Supreme Court noted that certiorari is only available when appeal is impossible and no other adequate remedy exists, and that a motion for reconsideration suspends the finality of an order.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed prematurely. Whether the remedy of certiorari is proper when a motion for reconsideration is still pending.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Court found the action to be premature and that it does not lie.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prematurity of the petition for certiorari: The Court held that the petition for certiorari was premature because the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner in the lower court had not yet been decided. The order approving the project of partition was not yet final nor executory. The pendency of the motion for reconsideration meant that the court could still rule in favor of the petitioner, making the resort to certiorari unwarranted at that stage. The Court emphasized that the action brought by the petitioner was not only premature but also did not lie. On the propriety of certiorari when a motion for reconsideration is pending: The Court reiterated that the remedy of certiorari may only be invoked when an appeal has become impossible and when there is no other more speedy and adequate remedy available. A motion for reconsideration, as in this case, is considered a proper and available remedy. The filing of such a motion suspends the running of the statutory period for appeal, preventing the order from becoming final and executory. Therefore, certiorari is not the appropriate remedy when a motion for reconsideration is still pending and undecided.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is premature and does not lie when a motion for reconsideration of the order sought to be assailed is still pending and has not yet been decided, as such motion suspends the finality of the order.