ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142413. June 14, 2000]

IAN SUAVERDEZ, et al. vs. HON. FRANCISCO B. IBAY, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 142413 (Ian Suaverdez & Gloria Jane Fajardo vs. Hon. Francisco B. Ibay and First Orient Funding Group, Inc.)

Respondent First Orient Funding Group, Inc. filed a civil case for a sum of money against petitioners Ian Suaverdez and Gloria Jane Fajardo which was docketed as Civil Case No. 98-1394 and raffled to Branch 135 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. After petitioners filed their Answer, the case was schedule for pre-trial hearings. The parties filed their pre-trial briefs. At the scheduled hearing on May 20, 1999, the trial court issued an order allowing plaintiff, herein respondent, to present evidence ex-parte for failure of counsel for the defendants, herein petitioners, to appear and authorizing the Branch Clerk of Court to receive evidence as commissioner. Herein petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order which was denied in the Order of July 15, 1999. On September 27, 1999, a petition for relief from order" was filed which was likewise denied in the Order of January 24, 2000. Said Order was received by petitioners on February 3, 2000. On March 8, 2000, petitioners received a copy of the Decision dated February 24, 2000 rendered in the aforesaid civil case. Hence, the present petition for certiorari with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order.

At the outset, it should be noted that the instant petition lacks the requirement of an affidavit and proof of service upon the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party pursuant to Section 13, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 2 (c), Rule 56. The failure of petitioner to comply with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition (Section 3, Rule 46).

The present petition seeks, among other things, to set aside and declare without force and effect the Orders dated May 20, 1999, July 15, 1999 and January 24, 2000 as well as the Decision dated February 24, 2000 and that petitioners be allowed to present their evidence. The petition is a special civil action under Rule 65 which should be filed only when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" (Ongsitco vs. CA, 255 SCRA 703). Since there was already a decision rendered in the civil case below, appeal and not certiorari under Rule 65, is the proper remedy. Settled is the rule that certiorari is not available where the proper remedy is an appeal in due course. Neither is certiorari a substitute for appeal or a lapsed appeal (GSIS vs. Olisa, 304 SCRA 421). Moreover, certiorari will not be issued to cure errors in proceedings or correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact. As long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction will amount to nothing more than error of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not by a special civil action of certiorari (CIR vs. CA, 257 SCRA 200).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE