Ongsiako v. Natividad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Anselmo V. Tolentino initiated a legal action against Augusto V. Ongsiako in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to compel Ongsiako to execute a deed of reconveyance for a house and lot. The trial court ruled in favor of Tolentino, ordering the reconveyance. Procedural History: Following the judgment, Ongsiako allegedly filed an intention to appeal, a record on appeal, and an appeal bond. However, due to the bombing of Manila, the record on appeal was not acted upon. Subsequently, Tolentino filed a petition for the reconstitution of the case. After reconstitution, the lower court issued an order of execution, finding that no appeal bond had been filed within the prescribed period. Ongsiako's motion for reconsideration of this order was denied. The Petition: Ongsiako filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the lower court's order declaring the case reconstituted and the subsequent order of execution. He argued that he was not duly notified of the petition for reconstitution, the order declaring the case reconstituted, or the motion for execution. The Supreme Court noted that certiorari was not the proper remedy and that the petition raised primarily factual issues that should have been addressed in the Court of Appeals after proper evidence was presented.
Issue(s)
Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the orders of reconstitution and execution. Whether petitioner Ongsiako was duly notified of the petition for reconstitution. Whether petitioner Ongsiako was duly notified of the order declaring the case reconstituted. Whether petitioner Ongsiako was duly notified of the motion for execution.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The orders of the lower court declaring the case reconstituted and issuing the writ of execution are sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy. The appropriate recourse would have been a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, where evidence of lack of notice could be presented and an appeal taken if the petition were denied. Furthermore, the question of notice primarily involves factual issues, which are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court, in a petition for certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. On notice of the petition for reconstitution: The reconstituted record contained a statement that a copy of the petition for reconstitution was sent by ordinary mail to petitioner's attorneys. While this statement alone is not sufficient proof of service, the Court presumed regularity in the proceedings, including the proper service of notice upon opposing counsel, as the court acted upon the petition. There was no evidence presented to show that service was not actually made, thus the presumption of regularity stands. On notice of the order declaring the case reconstituted: The records showed a sheriff's return certifying that a copy of the order was served by leaving it at the petitioner's office with an employee in charge. The petitioner's claim that service should have been made on his attorneys was unavailing, especially since these attorneys had failed to appear when previously notified. The Court also noted that notice upon a party is valid if ordered by the court, and there was no evidence to the contrary, thus upholding the presumption of regularity. On notice of the motion for execution: The records contained a registry return card showing that a copy of the motion for execution was sent to the petitioner's attorneys of record and was duly received. The petitioner's attempt to refute this by claiming the law firm had dissolved was inconsistent with his other claims regarding service. The Court found his inconsistent stand, coupled with his actual knowledge of the reconstitution from the service of the order declaring the case reconstituted, substantially diluted his good faith.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to annul orders of reconstitution and execution when the proper remedy would have been a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, followed by an appeal if denied. Presumptions of regularity in judicial proceedings, including notice and service, generally prevail in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.