GELINDON v DELA RAMA
G.R. No. 105072
December 9, 1993
VITUG, J.:
FACTS:
on 10 July 1989, herein private respondent Real Estate Investors, Inc. ("Investors"), filed a complaint, docketed as Summary Proceeding No. 7719, for forcible entry against the petitioners before Branch 78 of the Metropolitan Trial Court ("MTC") of Parañaque, Metro Manila. On 29 January 1992, a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioners with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Makati, Branch 139, to enjoin the MTC from ordering a decision on the case and to annul the several orders of the same court.
The petition was dismissed by the RTC in its order 6 of 3 February 1992.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
* MTC: in favor of investors.
G.R. No. 105072
December 9, 1993
VITUG, J.:
FACTS:
on 10 July 1989, herein private respondent Real Estate Investors, Inc. ("Investors"), filed a complaint, docketed as Summary Proceeding No. 7719, for forcible entry against the petitioners before Branch 78 of the Metropolitan Trial Court ("MTC") of Parañaque, Metro Manila. On 29 January 1992, a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioners with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Makati, Branch 139, to enjoin the MTC from ordering a decision on the case and to annul the several orders of the same court.
The petition was dismissed by the RTC in its order 6 of 3 February 1992.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
* MTC: in favor of investors.
On 23 April 1992, respondent Investor filed a motion for execution pending appeal
which was opposed by the petitioners.
On 7 May 1992, the instant petition for certiorari DIRECTLY WITH THE SC was filed by the petitioners, claiming that there was no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to stop the MTC judge from issuing a writ of execution save this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the direct petition for certiorari is proper
HELD:
NO.
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.
The indispensable elements of a petition for certiorari are:
(a) that it is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions; (b) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and
(c) that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The SC has on certain occasions entertained petitions for certiorari despite the existence of the remedy of appeal; in those exceptional cases, however, either public welfare and the advancement of public policy have dictated or the broader interests of justice have demanded, or when the orders complained of are found to be patent nullities, or that an appeal is considered clearly an inappropriate remedy.
In the instant case, however, the questions raised are issues evidently within the normal precincts of an appeal that cannot be peremptorily addressed by an extraordinary writ. It appears, in fact, that the petitioners have timely filed their notice of appeal, which is an adequate remedy; indeed, it is a bar to this petition.
On 7 May 1992, the instant petition for certiorari DIRECTLY WITH THE SC was filed by the petitioners, claiming that there was no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to stop the MTC judge from issuing a writ of execution save this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the direct petition for certiorari is proper
HELD:
NO.
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.
The indispensable elements of a petition for certiorari are:
(a) that it is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions; (b) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and
(c) that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The SC has on certain occasions entertained petitions for certiorari despite the existence of the remedy of appeal; in those exceptional cases, however, either public welfare and the advancement of public policy have dictated or the broader interests of justice have demanded, or when the orders complained of are found to be patent nullities, or that an appeal is considered clearly an inappropriate remedy.
In the instant case, however, the questions raised are issues evidently within the normal precincts of an appeal that cannot be peremptorily addressed by an extraordinary writ. It appears, in fact, that the petitioners have timely filed their notice of appeal, which is an adequate remedy; indeed, it is a bar to this petition.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment