ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145197.January 15, 2001]

ROSARIO vs. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILS.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder , for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 15 2001 .

G.R. No. 145197(Segundina Rosario vs. The University of the Philippines.)

On November 12, 1997, petitioner Segundina Rosario filed a petition for reconstitution of Transfer Certificate Title No. 269615 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 101, Quezon City presided by Judge Pedro Santiago. Respondent University of the Philippines opposed the petition on the ground that the land covered by TCT No. 269615 is already covered by a torrens title issued in its name and that it had so declared it for taxation purposes. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also filed an opposition to the petition.

On December 28, 1998, respondent UP filed a motion to inhibit Judge Santiago and to suspend the proceedings while its motion was pending. Without resolving the motion, the trial court continued to hear the case and, after the OSG and petitioner Rosario had presented evidence, denied UP's motion. On January 13, 1999, the trial court set the case for the presentation of UP's evidence on January 20, 1999.

On January 18, 1999, respondent UP moved to re-schedule the date of the presentation of its evidence as the handling counsel of the case was set to undergo a surgical operation from January 12-25, 1999. On January 20, 1999, the trial court denied the motion, deemed respondent UP to have waived its right to present evidence, and considered the case submitted for decision.

Respondent UP, therefore, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to set aside the January 13 and January 20, 1999 orders of the trial court. In the meantime, on January 22, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment ordering the reconstitution of the title in question. For this reason, respondent UP filed a supplemental petition before the Court of Appeals to also set aside the January 22, 1999 decision of the trial court.

While the petition was pending, Judge Santiago retired. Both the Republic and respondent UP filed motions for reconsideration to the January 22, 1999 decision. The trial court, with Judge Mariano del Castillo presiding, denied the same in its order of August 6, 1999. The OSG afterwards filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. While said appeal was pending, judgment was rendered in this case annulling the January 22, 1999 decision of the trial court. The appellate court also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review.

First. Petitioner contends that, instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, respondent UP should have filed an ordinary appeal to question the January 13, 20, and 22, 1999 rulings of the trial court.

The contention has no merit. Aside from the fact that the January 13 and 20, 1999 orders of the trial court are interlocutory, and thus not subject to appeal, respondent UP's resort to the extraordinary writ of certiorari was prompted by the trial court's palpable grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent UP its day in court. Indeed, in annulling the January 22, 1999 ruling of the trial court, the Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the case but confined itself to the question of whether respondent UP was denied due process.

Petitioner's contention that respondent UP's petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals was defective for its failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration in the trial court is likewise without merit since the petition was resorted to in order to check a palpable grave abuse of discretion resulting in the denial of UP's fundamental right to due process. (Matute v. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 768 (1969)).

Second. Petitioner contends that respondent UP is guilty of forum shopping since, after having filed the petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, it subsequently filed a motion in the trial court seeking reconsideration of its January 22, 1999 decision.

Again the contention has no merit. There is forum shopping when, as between two or more actions, there is identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in the actions, as well as identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the identity on the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration (Buan v. Lopez, 145 SCRA 34 (1986)). In this case, there is no identity of rights asserted in the petition for certiorari and in the motion for reconsideration of respondent UP because the petition for certiorari was directed against the trial court's lack of impartiality and of its failure to afford due process to respondent UP. The motion for reconsideration, on the other hand, was filed to correct the errors of the trial court in the determination of the merits of the case. Indeed, it was only after Judge Santiago had retired and a new judge had been appointed to Branch 101, that respondent UP filed its motion for reconsideration.

Third. Petitioner also contends that the Court of Appeals is guilty of "inconsistent adjudication" since it took cognizance both of the petition for certiorari of respondent UP and of the appeal filed by the OSG.

This claim is untenable. The appellate court cannot be faulted for giving due course to the OSG's appeal considering that at the time it filed such, a decision had yet to be promulgated in respondent UP's petition, which, as already stated, sought the annulment of the orders and decision of the trial court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, manifest bias and denial of due process. The effect of the decision of the Court of Appeals annulling the January 22, 1999 decision of the trial court is to render moot the pending appeal filed by the Solicitor General.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to deny the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours.

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE