Vicencio v. Sison
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves five civil cases where the plaintiffs sought to compel the defendant, Crisanto Vicencio, to execute deeds of conveyance for portions of land he had purchased. The court decisions required Vicencio to transfer these land portions to the plaintiffs upon their deposit of P0.06 per square meter, which included an P800 allocation for surveyors. Vicencio, the defendant, appealed these decisions. 2. Procedural History: After the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decisions, Vicencio, as the defendant, filed motions seeking to be released from the obligation to execute the deeds, arguing that the plaintiffs had lost their right to compel him due to the costs associated with compliance. The respondent judge, Pedro Ma. Sison, denied these motions and issued subsequent orders directing Vicencio to comply with the original judgments, including an order to pay surveyor fees from the plaintiffs' deposited funds. Vicencio objected to these orders and indicated his intention to file a writ of certiorari. 3. The Petition: Crisanto Vicencio filed this petition for a writ of certiorari, alleging that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion by issuing orders that allegedly altered and modified the original decisions. Specifically, Vicencio contended that the orders imposed new conditions not present in the affirmed decisions, such as requiring proof of title availability from the register of deeds and mandating the delivery of deeds within a specific timeframe, as well as allowing the deduction of costs from the deposited funds. The Supreme Court, however, found that an appeal was the proper remedy, which Vicencio had failed to perfect due to non-payment of fees, rendering the certiorari petition untenable.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing orders that amplified and clarified the method of execution for a final judgment. Whether the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is available to a petitioner who previously filed an appeal that was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court found that the remedy of certiorari was not proper because an appeal was available, and the petitioner had in fact appealed the orders. However, his appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute due to non-payment of fees and deposit. The Court also noted that even if the orders constituted an error, it could have been corrected by a motion for reconsideration, which the petitioner did not file.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that even if the lower court's orders clarified or amplified the original decision in a way the petitioner considered erroneous, such an act does not constitute an excess of jurisdiction or an abuse of discretion remediable by certiorari. The court possessed the jurisdiction and authority to ensure the execution of the judgment was effective, such as requiring registerable deeds and arranging for surveyor plans to facilitate the transfer of Torrens titles. The petitioner's contention that these were 'new conditions' was viewed by the Court as a matter of execution procedure rather than a jurisdictional overreach. On Issue 2: The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Since the petitioner had already availed himself of the remedy of appeal regarding these specific orders—which was ultimately dismissed because he failed to pay the corresponding fees and make the required deposit—he cannot now resort to certiorari to correct the same alleged errors. The remedies of appeal and certiorari cannot co-exist in the same cause to correct the same error. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration before the trial court, which is a mandatory prerequisite for a writ of certiorari to ensure the inferior court has the opportunity to correct its own error.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari will not issue to correct errors of procedure or judgment which could have been corrected by appeal or motion for reconsideration, especially when the remedy of appeal was available but was dismissed for failure to prosecute.