In a dispute over a property in Quezon City, the Supreme Court clarified the proper legal avenues for challenging lower court decisions. The Court emphasized that certiorari, a special civil action, is not the correct remedy for appealing interlocutory orders like the denial of a motion to dismiss. Instead, parties must typically wait for a final judgment and then appeal, unless the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction.

Carniyan vs. HGC: When Can You Bypass the Normal Appeal Process?

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC) to recover possession of land from Ricardo P. Carniyan and other residents. The Carniyans sought to dismiss the case, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because HGC hadn’t submitted a copy of the land title and the assessed value was below the jurisdictional threshold. The trial court denied their motion, leading the Carniyans to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was also denied. The Supreme Court then had to determine if the CA erred in upholding the trial court’s orders and if the Carniyans’ petition for certiorari was the proper procedural move.

The Supreme Court began by emphasizing that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or other adequate remedy. It cited Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, et al., 716 Phil. 500, 512 (2013), reinforcing this principle. An order denying a motion to dismiss is generally considered an interlocutory order, meaning it doesn’t fully resolve the case. In such instances, the proper course of action is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and appeal any adverse judgment, raising the issues from the dismissed motion to dismiss as errors. As the Court underscored, “Considering that Judge Villordon, through the March 18, 2011 Order, denied the petitioners’ motion to dismiss, the appropriate remedy was to file an answer, proceed to trial, and, in the event of an adverse judgment, interpose an appeal, assigning as errors the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss.”

This approach contrasts with a final order, which fully disposes of a case. The Court referenced Denso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 232 Phil. 256 (1987), to differentiate the two:

A “final” judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties’ next move (which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes “final” or, to use the established and more distinctive term, “final and executory.”

However, the Court acknowledged exceptions to this rule. Certiorari can be appropriate if the order was issued without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. This principle was reiterated in Emergency Loan Pawnshop, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 405 Phil. 524 (2001). The Court elaborated on this, stating, “Under certain situations, recourse to certiorari or mandamus is considered appropriate, that is, (a) when the trial court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction; (b) where there is patent grave abuse of discretion by the trial court; or, (c) appeal would not prove to be a speedy and adequate remedy as when an appeal would not promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiff’s baseless action and compelling the defendant needlessly to go through a protracted trial and clogging the court dockets by another futile case.”

In the Carniyan case, the petitioners argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because HGC hadn’t submitted a copy of the land title. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, asserting that jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the pleadings. The Court noted that a motion to dismiss is filed *before* evidence is presented, meaning the absence of a title at that stage does not strip the court of its power to hear the case.

The Court further addressed the petitioners’ challenge to the trial court’s denial of their motion for inhibition (recusal of the judge). Citing A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC, which applies specifically to Quezon City trial courts, the Court emphasized that each party is only allowed one motion for inhibition based on the grounds specified in Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. This rule exists to prevent parties from repeatedly seeking a judge’s removal to delay or manipulate proceedings. Because the Carniyans had already filed one motion for inhibition, the second was correctly denied.

Moving on, the Supreme Court addressed the declaration of default against the Carniyans for failing to file an answer. The proper remedy for a party declared in default is outlined in Section 3(b) of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court:

(b) Relief from order of default. – A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof and before judgment file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice.

This requires the defaulting party to demonstrate that their failure to answer was due to a legitimate reason and that they have a valid defense. The Carniyans failed to pursue this remedy. The court referenced Lina v. CA, et al., 220 Phil. 311 (1985), to summarize other remedies, stating: “b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial under Section1(a) of Rule 37; c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and executory, he may file a petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41)”

Finally, the Court addressed the rescheduling of the ex parte hearing (a hearing where only one party presents evidence due to the other party’s default). The Carniyans argued this was further grave abuse of discretion, but the Court found they failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or prejudice on the part of the judge. A mere allegation is insufficient; there must be concrete evidence of bias or improper motive. Without such evidence, the Court was unable to overturn the CA’s decision.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the petitioners properly availed of the remedy of certiorari to question interlocutory orders of the trial court. The Supreme Court ruled they did not, as certiorari is generally not the correct remedy for challenging such orders.
What is an interlocutory order?	An interlocutory order is a court order that does not fully resolve all the issues in a case. It’s an order made during the course of litigation that is not a final judgment.
When can you use certiorari to challenge a trial court order?	Certiorari is appropriate when the trial court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This is an exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders cannot be immediately appealed.
What should a party do if declared in default?	A party declared in default should file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default. They must show that their failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and that they have a meritorious defense.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion means the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
What is the significance of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC?	A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC is a rule specific to Quezon City courts that limits parties to only one motion for inhibition (recusal) of a judge per case. This prevents parties from repeatedly seeking a judge’s removal to delay proceedings.
Why was submitting a copy of the land title not required for jurisdiction?	The Supreme Court clarified that jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the pleadings, not by the presentation of evidence at the initial stage of a case. The absence of a title at the motion to dismiss stage did not remove the court’s jurisdiction.
What is an ex parte hearing?	An *ex parte* hearing is a hearing where only one party presents evidence, usually because the other party has been declared in default and failed to participate in the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of following proper procedural rules in court. Resorting to certiorari prematurely can be fatal to a case, as it is not a substitute for the ordinary process of appeal. Parties must demonstrate grave abuse of discretion to justify using this extraordinary remedy.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Carniyan v. Home Guaranty Corporation, G.R. No. 228516, August 14, 2019