Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 187982 : July 28, 2010] SPOUSES FROILAN BUENAFE AND BUENA DIALOGO-BUENAFE V. FILIPINAS NENE P. PASILABAN AND RTC JUDGE VALENTIN E. PURA, JR. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 July 2010 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 187982 (Spouses Froilan Buenafe and Buena Dialogo-Buenafe v. Filipinas Nene P. Pasilaban and RTC Judge Valentin E. Pura, Jr.) - Before this Court is a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Order^[1] dated February 5, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 23, on a Motion for Clarification of the Decision^[2] dated October 2, 2007 in Civil Case No. 07-0050.

Private respondent Filipinas Nene P. Pasilaban filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer against petitioner-spouses Froilan Buenafe and Buena Dialogo-Buenafe before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Naga City. Respondent alleged that petitioners were withholding possession of her property, a residential house and lot located at Zone 5, Greenfield Street, San Andres Subdivision, Barangay Pe�afrancia, Naga City.^[3] Respondent Pasilaban claimed that petitioners' possession of her property was merely by her tolerance, without any formal' or written contract, and with the understanding that petitioners would vacate the premises when the house would be sold. On June 28, 2006, respondent, thru counsel, formally demanded that petitioners vacate the premises. However, petitioners refused.^[4]

Petitioners countered that they were designated as caretakers of the subject property by respondent, with the understanding that the former will vacate only when the property has been sold and subject to reimbursement for any improvements they introduced on the property.^[5]

On April 18, 2007, the trial court promulgated a Decision,^[6] the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing, plaintiff having proved by a preponderance of evidence that she has a sufficient cause of action against the herein defendants, decision is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the latter to:

1)	Vacate immediately plaintiffs residential house and lot situated at Zone 5, Greenfield Street, [Barangay] Pe�afrancia, Naga City;
2)	Pay plaintiff the amount of Six Thousand (Php6,000.00) Pesos, representing monthly rentals for plaintiffs aforestated properties effective June 28, 2006 and the rest of the succeeding months until defendants shall have finally vacated the premises and restored plaintiffs peaceful possession thereof[;] and
3)	Reimburse plaintiff the amount of Ten Thousand (Php10,000.00) [Pesos] for and as attorney's fee[s].

SO ORDERED.^[7]

Petitioners appealed the decision to the RTC of Naga City. On October 2, 2007, the RTC affirmed the judgment of the MTCC with modification. It noted that petitioners had vacated the premises and turned over possession of the same to respondent. Thus, it modified the dispositive portion to reflect this change in the status of the property, to wit:

WHEREFORE, with all the foregoing, the decision rendered by the lower court in Civil Case No. 12696 is hereby affirmed with modification:

Defendants are hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the amount of Six Thousand Pesos ([P]6,000.00) representing rentals for the use of plaintiff s property from June 28, 2006 until May 30, 2007, the time they vacated the premises.

The award of attorney's fees is hereby deleted it not having been discussed fully in the decision rendered by the lower court.

Let the records of this case be remanded to the court of origin for proper implementation of the decision.

SO ORDERED.^[8]

In an Order dated October 31, 2007, the MTCC noted that 15 days had elapsed from the time defendants' counsel received a copy of the order dated October 2, 2007; but no pleading for reconsideration or any notice of appeal had been filed. Thus, the MTCC said, the order had attained finality.^[9]

Respondent then filed a motion for garnishment against the accruing monthly salary and/or wages of petitioner Buena from Bayantel Communications, Inc., Naga City Branch, to satisfy their adjudged claim. The same was granted by the trial court in an Order dated September 25, 2008. However, Bayantel Communications, Inc. Naga City informed respondent that petitioner Buena was not in any way connected with the company.^[10]

Respondent then filed a motion for clarification where it alleged that there appeared to be some confusion in the RTC's October 2, 2007 decision as to the amount of rentals to be paid by petitioners to respondent. Respondent pointed out that the RTC's October 2, 2007 decision implied that the defendants are required to pay respondent only P6,000.00 as rentals for the use of plaintiffs property from June 28, 2006 until May 30, 2007. This, they argued, was contrary to the decision rendered by the MTCC, which ordered the petitioners to pay respondent a monthly rental of P6,000.00 from June 28, 2006 until the subject property is vacated by petitioners.^[11]

On February 5, 2009, the RTC promulgated the assailed Order. It found that since there was indeed ambiguity in the total amount of rentals payable to respondent, clarification of the dispositive portion of the October 2, 2007 decision was in order to make it conform to the body of the decision and the judgment of the lower court. The RTC further held:

There is nothing in the body of the decision which suggests or implies that this Court intended to modify the findings of the court a quo as to the amount of monthly rentals payable to the plaintiff and the manner by which the same shall be paid. The original judgment directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount of Php6,000.00 per month from June 28, 2006 until the defendants vacate the property remains unchanged. The only significant change in so far as the said monthly rentals are concerned is the directive that payment must be made from June 28, 2006 until May 30, 2007 because at the time of the rendition of the decision, the defendants already vacated the premises.^[12]

Consequently, the RTC ruled that the amount of rental payable by petitioners should be P6,000.00 per month, from June 28, 2006 until May 30, 2007.^[13]

Hence, petitioners filed the present action before this Court.

At the outset, we observe that the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was directly filed with this Court, in violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts.

There is a hierarchy of courts determining the venue of appeals, which should serve as a general determinant of the proper forum for availing the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.^[14]

This Court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. However, in availing of such extraordinary writ, petitioners do not have complete liberty or discretion to file their petition in any of these courts.^[15]

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing an RTC decision must be filed with the Court of Appeals, whose decision may then be appealed to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. A direct recourse to this Court is warranted only where there are special and compelling reasons specifically alleged in the petition to justify such action.^[16]

In Vergara, Sr. v. Judge Suelto,^[17]  this Court explained the rule in this wise:

The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist therefor. Hence, that jurisdiction should generally be exercised relative to actions or proceedings before the Court of Appeals, or before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for some reason or another, are not controllable by the Court of Appeals. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writ's procurement must be presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in this regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe.^[18]

A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.^[19]

In the case at bar, petitioners have not alleged or sufficiently shown any special and compelling reason to justify the direct filing with this Court of the present petition. Hence, their failure to strictly adhere to the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts is sufficient cause for the dismissal of the present petition.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

[1] Penned by Presiding Judge Valentin E. Pura, Jr., rollo, pp. 29-31.

[2] Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Alfredo D. Agawa, id. at 23-26. The Decision was erroneously captioned as "Order."

[3] Id. at 20.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Penned by Judge Marvel C. Clavecilla, id. at 20-21.

[7] Id. at 22.

[8] Id. at 26.

[9] Id. at 27.

[10] Id. at 28.

[11] Id. at 10.

[12] Id. at 31.

[13] Id.

[14] People v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 492,497 (1999).

[15] Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), G.R. No. 173044, December 10, 2007, 539 SCRA 621, 634.

[16] Quesada v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 150325, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 454, 459. (Citations omitted.)

[17] 240 Phil. 719 (1987).

[18] Id. at 732-733.

[19] People v. Cuaresma, 254 Phil. 418,426-427 (1989).