Vios v Pantangco (GR 163103)

Petitioners: Charlie Vios

Sps. Rogelio & Teresita Antonio, Passive all throughout
Hon. Emilio Leachon, Presiding Judge of QC RTC Br. 224 as Nominal Party

Respondent: Manuel Pantangco Jr., owner of the residential lot

Counsels: Atty. Solano for Vios (Old)

Atty. Melanio Mauricio Jr. for Vios (New) – under Mauricio Law Firm
Atty. Genova for Sps. Antonio

Ponente: Brion

Issue: Petition for Review on Certiorari on CA Decision on October 10, 2003

February 1, 1994 – Pantangco bought the property

November 1995 – Old Counsel of Vios withdraws as Counsel

Municipal Trial Court

Date Petitioner Vios Result by Court Respondent Pantangco

filed Ejectment Case
July 12, 1996 Sheriff issued a Notice to Vacate and Demolish
Houses (& Pay for Use)
Benefit to Pantangco
July 18, 1996 Counsel of Sps. Antonio received a copy of the Decision
July 23, 1996 Old Counsel of Vios received a copy of the Decision Petitioners have 15 days to interpose an appeal (7/23 –
8/7)
August 5, 1996 New Counsel of Vios filed a Notice of Appearance with
Urgent Motion asking for a copy of the Decision
August 12, 1996 Filed Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution
(since 15 days had passed, decision was final)
August 30, 1996 Issued a Writ of Execution
Benefit to Pantangco
September 9, Moved to Quash the Writ of Execution of demolition
1996 (since 15 days had not run)
September 11, Opposed Motion to Quash
1996
September 23, Denied the Motion to Quash Writ of Execution
1996 Benefit to Pantangco

Regional Trial Court

Date Petitioner Vios Result Respondent Pantangco

 November 13, 1996 Filed for Petition for Certiorary and Mandamus with a
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
Vs. MTC Decision (for being counter to evidence) and
MTC Writ of Execution (for being premature since his
15 days had not run out)
August 4, 1997
August 18, 1997 Moved for Immediate Execution of the Decision
December 2, 1997
Filed a Motion to dismiss petition (via Manifestation,
then asked that it be treated as his Answer to the
Petition
Decided to Annul MTC Decision (for being contrary to
evidence) and determined the rights of parties under
Article 448 of the Civil Code (as to Builders’ good/bad
faith) and voided the Writ of Execution
Benefited Vios (restored possession)
Denied Motion for Execution since Motion for Moved for Reconsideration
Reconsideration timely
Benefited Pantangco
Denied Motion for Reconsideration
Benefited Vios

Court of Appeals

Date Petitioner Vios Result Respondent Pantangco

March 10, 1998 Filed for Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the
RTC Decision, which he holds as void since MTC
Decision can’t be assailed by Certiorari but by
Ordinary Appeal and said again that the 15 days had
expired.
He said that RTC had no jurisdiction to apply Art. 448
of the Civil Code without hearing the parties on that
issue.
He added that Certiorari should only cover grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
jurisdiction.
October 10, 2003 CA decided that 1) since No Notice signifying
Counsel’s withdrawal, 15 days had duly passed, 2) RTC
included Sps. Antonio as beneficiary but they did not
file a petition
Denied RTC Decision – no jurisdiction to review,
reverse or modify an MTC Decision on the merits via
Certiorari under Rule 65.
RTC’s determination of the rights of parties are void
for want of legal bases (obtained through wrong
remedy)
 THE COURT'S RULING

We find the petition by Vios praying for reversal of the CA Ruling partially meritorious.

What is the proper remedy from the decision of the RTC in a petition for certiorari? - APPEAL

Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court: “an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by

the Revised Rules of Court to be appealable”. (Just file a notice of appeal)

Magestrado v. People of the Philippines[4]:

The procedural issue herein basically hinges on the proper remedy which petitioner should have availed himself of before the Court of Appeals: an ordinary
appeal or a petition for certiorari.

The correct procedural recourse for petitioner was appeal, not only because RTC-Branch 83 did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
petitioner's Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 but also because RTC-Branch 83's Order of dismissal was a final order from which petitioners should
have appealed in accordance with Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Order or a judgment (final) when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court, ending the litigation in the lower
court.

Interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely, but leaves something to be done as regards the merits of the latter.

Certiorari generally lies only when there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy available to petitioners.

As in this cited case, Pantangco did not appeal. In lieu of an appeal, Pantangco sought to review the RTC certiorari decision through a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the RTC Decision that is

apparently based on Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, a remedy based on external fraud and lack of jurisdiction.[6]

Pantangco’s arguments for nullity of the RTC decision for lack of jurisdiction:

1. only interlocutory orders of the MTC are subject to the RTC certiorari jurisdiction;

2. final MTC orders must be appealed.[7]

 3. He likewise stressed that the RTC has no jurisdiction to reverse the decision of the MTC using a Rule 65 petition for certiorari because the Rule applies only to interlocutory orders

rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. [8]

Pantangcos Rule 47 (Declaration of Nullity) remedy is fatally defective because its use against an RTC decision in a certiorari case is foreclosed by the availability of an appeal to the CA.

Section 1 of Rule 47 provides that it covers only annulment of judgments for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available

through no fault of the petitioner.[9]

In Ramirez-Jongco v. Veloso III[10] , petitioners also want to use Rule 47 (Declaration of Nullity) but they themselves did not avail the remedy of appeal, hence Rule 47 (Declaration of Nullity) is

unapplicable.

Law of the Case and Finality of Judgment

Petitioners are wrong in their invoking the Law of the Case Doctrine to fight for the upholding of the RTC Decision.

Petitioners position: the RTC decision has become final because of Pantangcos clearly erroneous remedy; this final decision is now the law of the case between the parties.

The law of the case doctrine applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings;

The question settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case at the lower court and in any subsequent appeal, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which

the legal rule or decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. [11]

In this case, there is no question on appeal.

Rather than the law of the case doctrine, the petitioners may actually be invoking the binding effect of what they view as a final RTC decision on the theory that the RTC decision already determined

the rights of the parties with finality and binding effect.

This is the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, defined and explained as follows:

It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what
remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment even if at the risk of occasional errors.

Does the RTC Decision count as with finality of judgement:

1. If the judgment is valid, then it is final.

2. If the judgment is void, then it is not to be followed.

Final Decision: Partially Granted (void part is due to lack of jurisdiction since case was a petition for Certiorari)
1. Granting the Petition: CA is in error in ruling on the merits of Pantangco’s Rule 47 Petition (for Declaration of Nullity).
2. Denying the Petition: RTC decision is not fully valid.
a. The valid parts are only: MTC decision is not yet final. MTC writ of execution is invalid.
b. The invalid part is: MTC decision was modified and reversed on the merits.

Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.

Rule 41: Filing a Notice of Appeal to from RTC

Section 2. Modes of appeal. —

(a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal
with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and
other cases of multiple or separate appeals where law on these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

(b) Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in
accordance with Rule 42.

(c) Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with the
Rule 45. (n)

Rule 45: Certiorari (Petition for Review on Certiorari) – Errors of Judgment w/in 15 days
Mode of Appeal to the Supreme Court for Questions of Law: After the final disposition of a judgment

Rule 65: Certiorari (Extraordinary Writ of Certiorari) – Errors of Jurisdiction (special civic action)
a) for Judicial / Quasi-Judicial Decisions
b) without / in excess jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion,
c) no appeal, no plain, speedy, adequate remedy such as MR

Rule 47: Declaration of Nullity