The RTC in granting the Motion to Dismiss with Motion to Punish for Contempt filed by the defendants in Civil Case No. 07-0041 before the RTC of Las Pinas, on the ground that the complaint filed by the petitioners therein was barred by prior judgment, noted that the action was indeed barred by prior judgment in Civil Case No. LRC No. M-24 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 134 of Makati Metro Manila on February 23, 1989 confirming the title of applicant Nicomedes J. Lozada, the defendants [sic] in this case. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was also denied, hence they filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA, however dismissed the petition for certiorari, averring that the petitioners should have filed an appeal as the dismissal of the case was a final judgment, not an interlocutory order.
The Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as a wrong remedy availed of by the petitioners.
The Ruling:
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition lacks merit.
The petitioners argue that the Order dated July 27, 2007 of the RTC, dismissing their action for Quieting of Title and Reconveyance docketed as Civil Case No. 07-0041 on the ground of res judicata, and the Order[ dated December 28, 2007, denying the motion for reconsideration of the earlier Order, are mere interlocutory Orders and are not final Orders because their action was not adjudged on its merits and an Order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable.
On the other hand, the respondents argue that an Order granting a motion to dismiss is final, being an adjudication on the merits, so that the proper remedy is appeal; and the Order granting a motion to dismiss becomes final 15 days from receipt thereof with prejudice to the re-filing of the same case once such Order achieves finality.They further argue that certiorari proceedings cannot be used as substitute for a lost appeal.
The CA ruled:
An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final order. It is not interlocutory because the proceedings are terminated; it leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. Therefore, the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order.
Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal (including petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one’s own negligence or error in one’s choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.[21] The special civil action for certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.
It bears emphasis that the general rule is that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative.Time and again, the High Court has reminded members of the bench and bar that the special civil action of Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.
In the case at bar, the assailed Orders dismissing the Complaint in Civil Case No. 07-0041 on the ground of res judicata and denying the Motion for Reconsideration are final orders and completely dispose of the case. Appeal, and not a special civil action for certiorari, is the correct remedy to elevate said final orders. The manner of appealing said final orders is provided under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The instant Petition for Certiorari cannot be used by petitioners as a substitute for a lost appeal. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, the petition may be dismissed outright.
The Court totally agrees with the CA. Indeed, Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court (Rules) mandates that appeal is the remedy with respect to a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case; and a petition for certiorari is unavailable if there is appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law pursuant to Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules. The petitioners filed their Rule 65 certiorari petition before the CA on April 8, 2008 after they received a copy of the RTC Order dated December 28, 2007 denying their Motion for Reconsideration thereof on February 7, 2008.[ By the time they filed their CA petition for certiorari, the reglementary period to appeal the RTC Order of dismissal of the petitioners’ Complaint to the CA had already lapsed. In fact, their CA petition for certiorari was even filed a day late, bearing in mind that 2008 was a leap year and the period to file a Rule 65 certiorari petition is not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules.
Also, it is basic in remedial law that an order of dismissal of the complaint is a final order which is subject to appeal.
Consequently, the CA committed no reversible error.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated August 26, 2008 and Resolution dated November 10, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102990 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson),Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe and A. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
G. R. No. 185303, August 1, 2018, EDITHA S. MEDINA, RAYMOND A. DALANDAN, AND CLEMENTE A. DALANDAN, AS THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PETITIONERS, V. SPS. NICOMEDES AND BRIGIDA LOZADA, RESPONDENTS.
Citations omitted.
2 thoughts on “It is basic in remedial law that an order of dismissal of the complaint is a final order which is subject to appeal.”