Magestrado v People (2007)
ISSUES: (Related)
Chico-Nazario, J.
Summary and Doctrine:
A special civil action for certiorari under rule 65 lies only
when there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law
I. FACTS:
Respondent Elena Librojo filed a criminal complaint before
MeTC QC for perjury against Petitioner Magestrado,
alleging that he made untruthful statements in his Affidavit
of Loss before Notary Public Espejo. He lied about losing
his owner’s duplicate TCT, which document was used to file
a petition for issuance of new owner’s duplicate TCT. She
knew this because the title was surrendered to her by virtue
of a loan with mortgage to her.
Petitioner filed a motion for suspension of proceedings
based on prejudicial question. He claims that 2 civil case
cases (for recovery of a sum of money, and for cancellation
of mortgage, deliver of title, and damages) were pending
before RTC QC, and must be resolved first since the issues
are similar or intimately related.
MeTC QC: Denied. Issues of Civil actions not determinative
of guilt or innocence of accused. It also denied the MR.
Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, with
a prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
before RTC QC, alleging MeTC Judge Apalit committed
grave abuse of discretion
RTC: denied. No prejudicial question involved. MR denied.
Petitioner again filed a petition for Certiorari before CA.
CA: dismissed on grounds that petitioner’s remedy should
have been an appeal from the dismissal by RTC, pursuant
to Sec 10, Rule 44 of 1997 Rules of Civ.Pro.
CA also denied MR
Petitioner claims that he correctly questioned RTC’s order
of dismissal through petition or certiorari before the CA
while Respondents insist that an ordinary appeal was the
proper remedy
II.
WON petitioner properly filed a petition for certiorari before
the CA? No.
III. RATIONALE:
CA was correct in dismissing the petition pursuant to Sec2,
Rule 41 (not Sec10.Rule44). The correct procedure was
appeal, not only because RTC did not commit any grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing but also because the order
of dismissal was a final order from which petitioners should
have appealed in accordance with Rule 41.
Order deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending
action so nothing more can be done in the trial court. Unlike
an interlocutory order, which leaves something to be done
as regards the merits. In the case at bar, the RTC dismissed
the first petition for certiorari, finally disposing the case, and
therefore ordinary appeal is the proper remedy.
Certiorari generally lies only when there is no appeal nor
any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy available. But
in this case, appeal was available, and certiorari cannot be
used as a substitute for lost appeal.
Though petitioner invokes the doctrine that rules of
technicality must yield to broader interest of substantial
justice, the failure to perfect an appeal is not a mere
technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem as it deprives
the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal
21 Dec 2000. Petitioner received a copy denying his MR
18 Jan 2001. Deadline to file an appeal
19 Feb 2001. He filed a petition for certiorari
This petition cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of
appeal
IV. DISPOSITIVE:
Petition dismissed
V. Other Issue/Ruling
No prejudicial question.
Civil case for recovery of sum of money is concerned with
the loan obtained by respondent against petitioner and Civil
Case for cancellation and damages was against the real
estate mortgage. On the other hand, the criminal case was
focused on the perjury committed in filing for a new owner’s
duplicate TCT. Regardless whether the subject property
was mortgaged or not will not affect the determination of the
existence of guilt. The civil cases and criminal cases can
proceed independently of each other.