Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Tourism Authority vs. Philippine Golf Development & Equipment, Inc.
Philippine Tourism Authority vs. Philippine Golf Development & Equipment, Inc.
Philippine Tourism Authority vs. Philippine Golf Development & Equipment, Inc.
PHILIPPINE GOLF
DEVELOPMENT & EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Facts:
PTA entered into a contract with Atlantic Erectors, Inc. (AEI) for the construction of
the Intramuros Golf Course Expansion Projects for a contract price of P57,
954,647.94. Since AEI was incapable of constructing the golf course aspect of the
project, it entered into a sub-contract agreement with PHILGOLF to build the golf
course amounting to P27, 000,000.00. The sub-contract agreement also provides that
PHILGOLF shall submit its progress billings directly to PTA and, in turn, PTA shall
directly pay PHILGOLF.
PHILGOLF filed a collection suit against PTA amounting to P11, 820,550.53 plus
interest, for the construction of the golf course. PTA filed a motion for extension.
RTC granted the motion twice.
PTA failed to answer the complaint, RTC rendered a judgment of default in favor of
PHILGOLF.
PTA seasonably appealed the case to the CA. But before the appeal of PTA could
be perfected, PHILGOLF already filed a motion for execution pending appeal with
the RTC. RTC granted the motion and a writ of execution pending appeal was issued
against PTA. A notice of garnishment was issued against PTAs bank account at the
Land Bank.
PTA filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the RTC for granting the motion for execution pending appeal. The
CA ruled in favor of PTA.
PTA withdrew its appeal of the RTC decision and, instead, filed a petition1 for
annulment of judgment under Rule 47 premised on the argument that the gross
negligence of PTAs counsel prevented the presentation of evidence before the RTC.
CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment for lack of merit. PTA
questions this CA action in the present petition for certiorari.
ISSUES:
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only when there is no
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
No. Lastly, a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is only
available in cases when a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial 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, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It
is not a mode of appeal, and cannot also be made as a substitute for appeal. It will
not lie in cases where other remedies are available under the law.