Wrong remedy

In the same case I wrote about last week, the petitioner, in appealing to the Court of Appeals from the Regional Trial Court, filed a petition for certiorari rather than a petition under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. This led to the dismissal of her petition by the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner brought the issue up to the Supreme Court arguing that the petition for certiorari was the correct mode. The Supreme Court, in resolving the issue, decreed that the petitioner had opted for the wrong mode of appeal.

Again, to my fellow litigators, this case will help remind us of the necessity for faithful adherence to procedural rules. This is how the Supreme Court discussed the matter:

“Petitioner also argues that Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is no longer a remedy available because the judgment of the RTC on appeal has already become final, executory and unappealable under the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Court or A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC. The argument fails to persuade.

“When the RTC issued its 9 July 2021 Decision affirming the findings and conclusions of the MeTC in its 21 September 2020 Decision, it did so in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It is elementary that all appeals from judgments rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, regardless of whether the appellant raises questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law, shall be brought to the CA by filing a petition for review under Rule 42. It is evident that the petitioner availed of the wrong mode or remedy when they sought recourse by way of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

“A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action, independent from the principal action, and not a part or a continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of. It is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

“The remedy of certiorari may only be resorted to in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, as a rule, certiorari cannot be made as a substitute for a lost appeal.

“Clearly, an appeal by way of a petition for review under Rule 42 was available to petitioner. However, they opted to avail of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 invoking the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Court or A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC which, as correctly ruled by the CA, is not applicable. The instant case was filed with the MeTC of Quezon City on 3 April 2019 and was decided by the said court on 21 September 2020. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling in a Decision dated 9 July 2021 and Order dated 2 March 2022.

“Note that A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC took effect on 11 April 2022, and has a prospective application, viz.:

RULE V EFFECTIVITY

“The Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts shall take effect on 11 April 2022 and shall prospectively apply only to cases filed from the said date of effectivity. Those pending cases covered by these Rules, which are currently before the second and first level courts, shall remain with and be decided by those same courts based on the rules applicable at the time those cases were filed.

“The categorical language of Rule V of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC cannot be any clearer leaving no room for interpretation.

“Nevertheless, even if the Court deems it proper to relax the rules and treat the petition for certiorari as a petition for review under Rule 42, it remains that the petition was filed out of time.

“The RTC Decision dated 9 July 2021 and the Order dated 2 March 2022 being assailed before the CA was received by the petitioner’s counsel on 28 April 2022. Admittedly, petitioner’s counsel only filed with the CA the Petition for Certiorari on the 50th day from their receipt of the RTC Order dated 2 March 2022 which denied their motion for reconsideration. This is way beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 42 petition.

“Undoubtedly, the assailed Decision and Order of the RTC already became final by operation of law.

“Judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. The court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final by operation of law.

“Indeed, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down.”

As I always say, no matter how meritorious a case may be, if correct procedure is not followed, the action will not prosper. Litigants must follow the proper modes of appeal in order for their cases to be heard. Strict observance and faithful adherence to the rules is key.

The quoted salient part of the decision is from Caridad Pacheco v. Jimmy F. Reyes G.R. No. 268216, 26 February 2024.