ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 171926. April 26, 2006]
CORAZON G. IBARRA-ESTRADA v. AMADO A. NGKING, SHERRY IBARRA, DEXTER IAN NGKING, AND ALEXANDER BRYAN I. NGKING
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated APR. 26, 2006
G.R. No. 171926 (Corazon G. Ibarra-Estrada v. Amado A. Ngking, Sherry Ibarra, Dexter Ian Ngking, and Alexander Bryan I. Ngking)
Petitioner, former common-law wife of respondent Amado Ngking and mother of respondents Sherry, Dexter and Alexander Bryan, filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City a case for unlawful detainer against said respondents. On April 23, 2004, the MTC decided in favor of herein petitioner. The case was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which issued a Decision dated February 1, 2005 reversing and setting aside the MTC decision and ordering the parties to submit additional and appropriate pleadings in accordance with Sec. 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of said Decision but in an Order dated May 2, 2005, the RTC denied said motion.
On September 15, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). On September 30, 2005, the CA issued a Resolution, portions of which read:
All told, whether as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or as a petition for review under Rule 42 of the [R]evised Rules of Civil Procedure, the filing of the instant Petition was beyond the reglementary periods as required by the Rules. Needless to stress, the filing of an appeal is not only mandatory but jurisdictional for the Court to entertain, hear and decide the same.
Concluding, the Petition is dismissible outright on grounds that it was filed beyond the reglementary period and is a wrong mode of appeal.
ACCORDINGLY, above premises considered, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED OUTRIGHT. [1] cralaw
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA Resolution of dismissal was denied per Resolution dated March 14, 2006.
Petitioner then filed the present petition for review with this Court alleging that the CA committed an error when it dismissed the petition merely on technicalities without considering the extraordinary circumstances thereof; that she did not file the petition for certiorari on time because she believed that Judge Ramon Cruz was sincerely trying to reconcile her with her children; and that the CA committed error when it dismissed the petition despite respondent judge's grave abuse of discretion.
The Court dismisses the petition outright. Contrary to the declaring of the CA that a petition for review should have been filed by petitioner, the Court finds that the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in the CA is the correct remedy. The RTC decision dated February 1, 2005 merely set aside the MTC decision in favor of petitioner and proceeded to hear the case, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. - If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In the case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.
If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice.
However, the CA did not commit any reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time. Petitioner received the RTC's Order dated May 2, 2005 denying said Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Decision dated February 1, 2005, on May 24, 2005. The last day for filing the petition for certiorari is July 23, 2005. Petitioner filed her petition for certiorari with the CA only on September 15, 2005 or fifty four (54) days late.
Moreover, the Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that reconciliation efforts with the children do not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" that would justify petitioner's delay in filing the petition for certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. CHICO-NAZARIO, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo , p. 44.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
