Suntay v. Tirona
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In a civil action filed by Gabriel Labog against spouses Angel Suntay and Edna R. Suntay, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision on September 14, 1939, ordering the Suntays to pay Labog P150 and Labog to pay the Suntays P300. Procedural History: Gabriel Labog filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied. Subsequently, on September 28, 1939, Labog filed another petition for reconsideration and new trial, set for hearing on September 30, 1939. However, on September 29, 1939, the court issued a resolution modifying its original decision by removing the P300 award in favor of the Suntays. The Suntays did not appeal this modified resolution, allowing it to become final. The Petition: The Suntays filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court against Judge Emiliano T. Tirona and Gabriel Labog. They alleged that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion by resolving Labog's second motion for reconsideration and new trial a day before the scheduled hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in resolving the second motion for reconsideration and new trial before the scheduled hearing. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy when an appeal was available but not availed of.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The resolution of September 29, 1939, has become final and unappealable. Certiorari will not lie when an appeal is available and adequate.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The judge had jurisdiction over the case when he issued the resolution of September 29, 1939, as less than 30 days had passed since the original decision was rendered. The judge could still act on the case, even motu proprio. The fact that the resolution was issued a day before the scheduled hearing for the second motion for reconsideration did not divest the judge of jurisdiction, especially since the Suntays did not appeal the modified resolution, allowing it to attain finality. On Issue 2: The Court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy in this case. The resolution of September 29, 1939, was an appealable order. Since the Suntays failed to file an appeal, which was an adequate and speedy remedy to correct any alleged error, they could not resort to certiorari. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that when an appeal is available and has not been availed of, certiorari will not be granted, as it is not a substitute for the lost appeal. The Court presumed that the Suntays' counsel was notified of the resolution, as there was no evidence to the contrary, and the allegation of absence from the Philippines was not sufficiently substantiated with dates to prove non-notification.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a remedy of last resort, intended to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for an appeal, which is the ordinary remedy for errors of law or fact committed by a lower court. If a party fails to avail of the remedy of appeal, which was available and adequate, and the assailed decision or order has become final, certiorari will not be granted.