CARMELITA V. LIM and G.R.
No. 137187
VICARVILLE
REALTY and
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Present:
Petitioners,
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
HON. BENJAMIN T. VIANZON
in
his capacity as the Presiding Promulgated:
Judge
of Branch 1 of the Regional
Trial
Court of Bataan and VALENTIN
GARCIA
and CONCEPCION GARCIA,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
Before us is a Petition[1]
for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed
by Carmelita V. Lim (Lim) and Vicarville Realty and Development Corporation
(Vicarville), assailing the Orders[2]
dated 3 September 1998 and 13 November 1998
issued by public respondent Benjamin T. Vianzon of Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 1 in Civil Case No. 6779, entitled “Sps. Valentin
and Concepcion Garcia v. Carmelita V. Lim and Vicarville Realty and Development
Corporation.” The assailed orders allegedly denied perfunctorily
petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss dated
The antecedents follow.
On
On
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is
recommended that an information for Violation of Article 183 of the Revised
Penal Code be filed against Valentin Garcia, and the dismissal of the charge of
Falsification also against Valentin Garcia. And accordingly, the counter
charges of Valentin Garcia against Carmelita Lim, Corazon Rueda, and Villamon
Fernandez are hereby dismissed.
SO RESOLVED.[10]
On
Attached to private respondents’ Complaint
is a Certification and Verification[14]
Garcia had executed which reads in part:
x x x x
That he is one of the plaintiffs in the foregoing
Complaint;
That he has caused the preparation of the said Complaint
the allegations of which he has read and found to be true and correct;
That except for the criminal actions which are pending
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bataan, he has not heretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein;
That if he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court x x x x[15]
Thereafter, Garcia filed before the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor a Petition for Suspension of Criminal
Action Based Upon The Pendency of A Prejudicial Question.[16]
Garcia prayed that the criminal action before said office be suspended pending
the resolution of Civil Case No. 6779. This petition was later denied by the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor on
On 24 June 1998, the petitioners filed
before the RTC of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 1 a Motion to Dismiss raising the
following grounds: a) private respondents violated the rule against
forum-shopping in that they failed to state in the Verification and Certification
attached to the Complaint that there is an earlier case filed by petitioners (sic)
against them (sic) not only involving the same issues but also the same set of
facts; and b) the claim set forth in private respondents’ Complaint had been
extinguished by the previous sale of the property to the petitioners.[18]
Public respondent then issued the
assailed Order[19]
dated
Finding the Motion to Dismiss filed by the
defendants and the grounds relied upon to be unmeritorious, the same is DENIED.
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED for the
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[20]
Petitioners filed their Motion for
Reconsideration on
x x x x
That the court’s order dated September 3, 1998 is a mere
interlocutory order and not a final judgment or decision where there is a need
for the court to state clearly the facts and the law relied upon by it;
That as correctly pointed out by the plaintiff’s counsel,
for forum shopping to be present, both actions must raise identical causes of
action, subject matter and issues and there can be no forum-shopping in the
instant civil case because as a civil action, it has a different cause of
action from a criminal action instituted by the defendants;[22]
Meanwhile, on
In their Memorandum[24]
dated
In their Memorandum[26]
dated
Moreover, private respondents maintain
that they are not guilty of forum-shopping because the cause of action of the
civil action they instituted is different from that of a criminal action.[30]
We dismiss the petition.
On the procedural aspect, we find that
petitioners disregarded the doctrine of judicial hierarchy which we enjoin
litigants and lawyers to strictly observe. The Court’s original jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari, as in the case at bar, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction is shared by this Court with the
Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the
Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed
only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition. This is an established policy necessary to
avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better
devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the
further clogging of the Court’s docket.[31]
In the instant petition, petitioners failed
to show any compelling reason why they filed it before us instead of the Court
of Appeals. For this reason, among others, the petition must fail. We recall
our ruling in Vergara,
Sr. v. Suelto,[32] thus:
The Supreme Court is a
court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the
functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition.
It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in
the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called
extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or
where serious and important reasons exist therefor. Hence, that jurisdiction
should generally be exercised relative to actions or proceedings before the
Court of Appeals, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or
agencies whose acts for some reason or another, are not controllable by the
Court of Appeals. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within
the competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in
either of these courts that the specific action for the writ’s procurement must
be presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a
policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe.[33]
Moreover,
the instant petition is procedurally flawed as it is not
accompanied by copies of relevant pleadings mandated by the second paragraph of
Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Said provision reads
as follows:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. –
When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by
a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof,
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
Section 3, Rule 46. (Emphasis supplied.)
Specifically, as pointed out by
respondents, the instant petition is not accompanied by copies of the Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration that petitioners filed with the trial
court. These are documents important for the Court’s appraisal, evaluation and
judicious disposition of the case. Failing to fully apprise the Court of the
relevant details of the case, we find this egregious error a sufficient cause for
the dismissal of the instant petition. As held in
x x x the lower court’s holding that appellant’s
failure to accompany his petition with a copy of the judgment or order subject
thereof together with copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto “is fatal to his cause” is supported not only by the
provision of that Rule but by precedents as well.[35]
A
party who seeks to avail of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari must observe
the rules laid down by law, and non-observance of the said rules may not be
brushed aside as mere technicality.[36]
In any case, even on the substantive
aspect, the petition fails to persuade us. While we agree with petitioners’ lament
that the Order dated 3 September 1998 is
defective as it did not state clearly and distinctly the reasons for the denial
of petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss, it is noteworthy, however, that public
respondent corrected his error in the Order dated 13 November 1998 denying
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. There is no objection to a judge
correcting or altogether altering his case disposition on a motion for
reconsideration, it being the purpose of such recourse to provide the court an
opportunity to cleanse itself of an error unwittingly committed, or, with like
effect, to allow the aggrieved party the chance to convince the court that its
ruling is erroneous. A motion for reconsideration before resort to certiorari
is required precisely to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct
any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the
legal and factual aspects of the case.[37]
Parenthetically, assuming that the two
orders were erroneous, such error would merely be deemed as an error of
judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari.
As long as the public respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error
committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will amount to nothing more than
an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by appeal. All
errors committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of
judgment. Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed for the correction of
errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. Petitioners’ rights can be
more appropriately addressed in an appeal.[38]
Significantly, even if we accord merit
to petitioners’ contention that public respondent denied their Motion to
Dismiss perfunctorily, it does not follow that the motion to dismiss should
have been granted or that the conclusion should be that public respondent had
acted with grave abuse of discretion.
The Motion to Dismiss, as earlier
noted, is predicated on two grounds, namely: breach of the forum-shopping rule
and extinguishment of the cause of action by the previous sale of the property
involved to them.
Forum-shopping exists when the
elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires
the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at
least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2)
identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded
on the same facts; and (3) identity with
respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any
judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is
successful would amount to res adjudicata in the other case.[39]
What is pivotal in determining whether
forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and
parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative
agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or
administrative agencies upon the same issues.[40]
On this issue, we hold that private
respondents were not mandated to disclose the status of the criminal cases. This
is so because, as asserted by private respondents, there is no identity of the
causes of action, issues and reliefs prayed for
in the criminal cases and the civil case. The subject matter in
I.S. No. 97-984 is whether
criminal
actions for Falsification and Perjury should be instituted against Garcia. The
principal issue in I.S. No. 98-095 is similarly whether a criminal complaint
for Falsification and Use of A Falsified Document should be filed against
Carmelita Lim, Villamon Fernandez and Corazon Rueda. The principal issue raised
in Civil Case No. 6779 is the validity of the alleged Deed of Sale which
petitioners claim to be the basis for their custody of the subject transfer
certificate of title.
Anent the contention that private
respondents’ complaint has been extinguished by their sale of the property to
the petitioners, this is a matter best threshed out through a full-blown trial.
In sum, the viability of the instant
petitions is irreversibly neutered by the procedural deficiencies thereof and the
absence of grave abuse of discretion on public respondent’s part.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DISMISSED Costs against petitioners.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[31]Yared v. Hon. Ilarde, 391 Phil. 722,
732-733 (2000) citing People v. Cuaresma,
G.R. No. 67787, 18 April 1989, 172 SCRA 415, 423-424.
[37]Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.), Inc. v.
Español, G.R. No. 156804,
[39]Rudecon Management Corporation v. Singson, G.R.
No. 150798,