Inappropriate and late remedy

This is another case involving the special civil action of certiorari. Being a remedy of last recourse, it can be resorted to only when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Besides it has to be filed within the prescribed period.

This case involved two adjacent parcels of land, lots 1 covered by TCT No. 233887 and lot 2 covered by TCT 151149 respectively registered in the names of Yoly married to Lito and Lisa, single.

Sometime in January 1996, Ruben entered into the subject parcels of land and planted agricultural crops thereon. When Yoly and Lisa learned about Ruben’s moves they asked Ruben to vacate their lands. But Ruben refused. So, in separate complaints, Yoly and Lisa filed suits against Ruben before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) for recovery of possession (accion publiciana). After the joinder of issues where Ruben claimed that he was the owner of the lots, and after completion of a relocation survey, Yoly and Lisa filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. So on November 9, 1998 the MCTC rendered separate judgments in favor of Yoly and Lisa by ordering Ruben to vacate the properties in question.

The period of appeal lapsed without Ruben filing an appeal of said decisions. So on May 25, 2000, upon motions of Yoly and Lisa, the MCTC issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of execution. On October 19, 2000, the MCTC issued said writ in both cases. Ruben did not question said order or asked that the writ be quashed. It was only on February 12, 2001 when he filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) asking that the order of May 25, 2000 for the issuance of the writ of execution and the writs themselves issued on October 19, 2000 be nullified. He claimed that he learned of the MCTC decision against him only on January 22, 1999. Forthwith he said that he filed a notice of appeal. But instead of acting on his appeal, the MCTC already issued the May 25, 2000 order of execution, Ruben alleged in his petition. Eventually, the RTC granted Ruben’s petition and nullified the May 25, 2000 order as well as the writ of execution and all processes issued pursuant thereto. Was the RTC correct?

No. This extraordinary remedy of certiorari lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the instant case, certiorari is not the only available remedy of Ruben. He could have easily filed with the MCTC a motion to quash said order of May 25, 2000 and the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto on the very same grounds stated in his petition for certiorari. The rationale for the filing of this motion is to allow the MCTC the opportunity to correct its imputed error. He is not barred from filing said motion to quash the said order and the writ for reasons other than his own omission. Ruben has only himself to blame for immediately resorting to the filing of petition for certiorari without first availing of the other reliefs provided by law.

But assuming that the petition for certiorari is Ruben’s only available recourse, his petition should also be dismissed for having been filed out of time. The New Rules of Civil Procedure, in Section 4, Rule 65 prescribes a period of 60 days within which to file said petition. The 60 days period was deemed reasonable and sufficient time for a party to mull over and prepare a petition asserting grave abuse of discretion by a lower court. The period was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case and is thus considered in-extendible. In this case, Ruben filed the petition for certiorari only on February 12, 2001 or more than three months after the writ of execution was issued. Undoubtedly, the belated filing was fatal to Ruben’s cause (Balayan et. al. vs. Acorda, G.R. No. 153537, May 5, 2006).

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]