Manila Post Publishing Co. v. Sanchez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Manila Post Publishing Company filed a civil case for replevin against Emeterio Pascual and John Doe, seeking the return of movable properties listed in Annex "A" and their seizure under a P94,000 bond. The sheriff seized some effects in the possession of Emeterio Pascual and Eugenio Lopez. Procedural History: Emeterio Pascual filed a motion for specification of values and for the sheriff to hold the seized effects. Eugenio Lopez filed a motion alleging he purchased two linotype machines from Pascual and posted a bond for their return, requesting to be included as a defendant and for an extension to file his answer. The respondent judge scheduled a hearing and ordered the sheriff to desist from returning the seized goods to the plaintiff. The Manila Post Publishing Company filed urgent motions requesting the sheriff to deliver the seized goods due to the defendant's failure to file the corresponding bond within five days and for Eugenio Lopez's failure to serve a copy of his bond. The respondent judge issued orders requiring the plaintiff to submit an amended sworn statement, granting the defendants a period to file a counter-bond for the return of the effects, granting Eugenio Lopez an extension to file his answer, and ordering the sheriff to suspend the return of the effects to the plaintiff. The Petition: The Manila Post Publishing Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the respondent judge acted with excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of December 1 and 5, 1947, and prayed for their nullification.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of December 1 and 5, 1947. Whether a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to filing a petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to give the lower court an opportunity to reconsider its orders by not filing a motion for reconsideration, which is a prerequisite for filing a petition for certiorari, except in exceptional circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of filing a motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated its consistent practice of requiring parties to give lower courts an opportunity to reconsider their orders before elevating the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari. This practice is based on strong reasons of policy and courtesy, and to avoid unnecessary appeals on issues that the lower court has the right to decide. The Court cited Herrera v. Barretto and Uy Chu v. Imperial to support the rule that a motion for reconsideration is generally necessary before a writ of certiorari may be issued. The Court emphasized that this requirement is a settled rule in the jurisdiction. The Court further noted that some alleged irregularities involved questions of fact, which are not proper for certiorari, while others, though involving questions of law, did not have the lower court's attention called to them via a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the petition could not prosper for failure to comply with this procedural requirement. On the substantive issues regarding replevin and bonds: The Court did not discuss or resolve the substantive legal grounds invoked by the parties. The ponencia explicitly stated that it was unnecessary to resolve these issues because the petition was being denied on a procedural technicality. The Court's decision focused solely on the procedural defect of failing to file a motion for reconsideration in the lower court, deeming it sufficient to dismiss the petition without delving into the merits of the replevin case or the propriety of the orders issued by the respondent judge.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the lower court before resorting to a petition for certiorari, unless exceptional circumstances justify immediate recourse to the appellate court.