The Supreme Court has reiterated that a petition for certiorari is not the appropriate remedy when other legal avenues are available. In a case involving a dispute over the possession of land, the Court emphasized that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory. This means it’s not a final order and therefore cannot be immediately appealed. Instead, the party should proceed with the case, and if an adverse judgment is rendered, appeal by assigning the denial of the motion to dismiss as an error. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and understanding the hierarchy of remedies available to litigants.

Carniyan vs. Home Guaranty Corporation: When a Quest for Dismissal Leads to Default

The case of Ricardo P. Carniyan, et al. v. Home Guaranty Corporation, G.R. No. 228516, decided on August 14, 2019, revolves around a complaint filed by Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC) against the Carniyans for recovery of possession of a parcel of land in Quezon City. The Carniyans, instead of filing an answer, filed motions to dismiss and archive the case, arguing that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction because HGC had not yet acquired ownership of the property and its assessed value was below the jurisdictional amount. Judge Villordon of the RTC denied these motions. The Carniyans then filed a motion to expunge the order denying their motions and sought Judge Villordon’s inhibition, which was also denied. Failing to file an answer, they were declared in default, leading them to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was also denied. The Supreme Court was then asked to determine whether the trial court orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the Carniyans had pursued an inappropriate remedy. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court noted that an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, not a final one. Therefore, the appropriate remedy was to file an answer, proceed to trial, and, if necessary, appeal an adverse judgment, assigning the denial of the motion to dismiss as an error. This procedural misstep proved fatal to the Carniyans’ case.

The Court referred to the case of Denso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, which clearly distinguishes between final and interlocutory orders:

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… Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case…but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is “interlocutory.”

The Court further explained that while there are exceptions to this rule, such as when orders are issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, none of these exceptions applied in the Carniyans’ case. The Carniyans argued that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because HGC had not submitted a certified true copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 262715. However, the Court clarified that the submission of the TCT was not a condition precedent to the RTC’s jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the pleadings, not necessarily by the evidence presented at the initial stages of the case.

The Supreme Court noted that a motion to dismiss is filed before the parties present their evidence. The rules allow a defendant to file such a motion before answering the complaint. If the motion is denied, the defendant is then given the opportunity to file an answer. The case proceeds to pre-trial and then to trial, where evidence is presented. Therefore, the argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction without the TCT had no legal basis, and no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to Judge Villordon in denying the motion.

Regarding the denial of the motion to expunge the March 18, 2011 Order and the motion for inhibition, the Court again found no grave abuse of discretion. The Carniyans had previously moved for Judge Villordon’s inhibition, which was denied. A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC specifically prohibits multiple motions for inhibition by one party. Therefore, Judge Villordon’s denial was in accordance with the rules.

The Court emphasized that the Carniyans failed to file an answer despite being directed to do so by the trial court. This failure led to their declaration of default. When a party is declared in default, Section 3(b) of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides a remedy: to file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, with an affidavit showing a meritorious defense. The Carniyans failed to pursue this remedy, making their petition for certiorari even more improper. The appellate court correctly pointed out that the Carniyans could not simply conjure grave abuse of discretion to avail themselves of a petition for certiorari when a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy was available.

Finally, the Court addressed the rescheduling of the ex parte hearing for HGC’s evidence presentation. The Carniyans alleged that this was due to Judge Villordon’s hasty action, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. However, the Court found no evidence to support this claim. The Carniyans failed to demonstrate that the presiding judge acted arbitrarily or despotically. Absent such a showing, the Court had no basis to overturn the CA’s denial of the petition for certiorari.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and exhausting available remedies before resorting to extraordinary writs like certiorari. The Carniyans’ failure to follow the established rules of procedure proved detrimental to their case, highlighting the need for litigants to understand and utilize the correct legal avenues for redress.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing orders that ultimately led to the petitioners being declared in default in a recovery of possession case.
Why did the Supreme Court deny the petition?	The Supreme Court denied the petition because the petitioners availed themselves of the wrong remedy (certiorari) instead of following the proper procedures for challenging interlocutory orders and orders of default.
What is an interlocutory order?	An interlocutory order is an order that does not finally dispose of a case, leaving further issues to be resolved by the court. An order denying a motion to dismiss is considered an interlocutory order.
What should the petitioners have done after the denial of their motion to dismiss?	After the denial of their motion to dismiss, the petitioners should have filed an answer, proceeded to trial, and, if an adverse judgment was rendered, appealed by assigning the denial of the motion to dismiss as an error.
What remedy is available to a party declared in default?	A party declared in default may file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default, showing 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 implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners failed to prove that the judge’s actions met this standard.
Was the presentation of a Torrens title a condition precedent to the court’s jurisdiction?	No, the submission of a certified true copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was not a condition precedent to vest the court with jurisdiction over the complaint. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the pleadings.
What is A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC?	A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC is a rule that applies specifically to litigations in Quezon City trial courts and prohibits the filing of multiple motions for inhibition by one party.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of understanding and adhering to the proper legal procedures in Philippine courts. Choosing the wrong remedy can have significant consequences, including the loss of legal recourse.

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 vs. Home Guaranty Corporation, G.R. No. 228516, August 14, 2019