A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is available to assail a decision in a small claims case despite the rule that such decisions are final and unappealable, provided that the petition alleges jurisdictional errors constituting grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors of judgment. The proscription on appeals does not preclude the extraordinary writ of certiorari where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Petitioner A.L. Ang Network, Inc. is a water service provider that was issued a Certificate of Public Convenience by the National Water Resources Board on August 7, 2003. Respondent Emma Mondejar is a homeowner in Regent Pearl Subdivision, Bacolod City, who had a water service agreement with petitioner. The dispute arose from petitioner's collection of unpaid water bills from respondent for the period June 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005, which involved the question of which rate applied — the original flat rate of ₱75.00 per month or the adjusted rates later imposed by petitioner.

Petitioner A.L. Ang Network, Inc. is a water service provider that supplied water to and collected payment from homeowners of Regent Pearl Subdivision in Bacolod City. Respondent Emma Mondejar, who owns and occupies Lot 8, Block 3 of the subdivision, was one of petitioner's customers. On March 23, 2011, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases before the MTCC, seeking to collect ₱23,111.71 representing respondent's unpaid water bills for the period June 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005. Petitioner claimed that respondent and her family consumed a total of 1,150 cubic meters of water, which, upon application of the agreed rate of ₱113.00 for every 10 cubic meters plus an additional charge of ₱11.60 for every additional cubic meter, amounted to ₱28,580.09. Respondent paid only ₱5,468.38, leaving a balance of ₱23,111.71 despite repeated demands.

In defense, respondent contended that from April 1998 up to February 2003, she religiously paid the agreed monthly flat rate of ₱75.00 for her water consumption. She claimed that notwithstanding their agreement that the rate would be adjusted only upon prior notice to homeowners, petitioner unilaterally charged her unreasonable and excessive adjustments far above the average daily water consumption for a household of only three persons. She also questioned the propriety and basis of the ₱23,111.71 claim. In the interim, petitioner disconnected respondent's water line for non-payment of the adjusted water charges from March 2003 up to August 2005.

On June 10, 2011, the MTCC rendered a Decision holding that since petitioner was issued a Certificate of Public Convenience by the National Water Resources Board only on August 7, 2003, it could only charge respondent the agreed flat rate of ₱75.00 per month prior thereto, or ₱1,050.00 for the period June 1, 2002 to August 7, 2003. Given that respondent had made total payments of ₱1,685.99 for the same period, she was considered to have fully paid petitioner. The MTCC disregarded petitioner's reliance on an HLURB Decision dated August 17, 2000 as the source of its authority to impose new rates, in the absence of proof that petitioner complied with the directive to inform the HLURB of the result of its consultation with homeowners and that the HLURB approved the same. The MTCC also noted that petitioner failed to submit evidence showing the exact date when it began imposing the NWRB-approved rates and that the parties had a formal agreement containing the terms and conditions thereof. The MTCC ruled that the earlier agreed rate of ₱75.00 per month should still be the basis for charges for the period August 8, 2003 to September 30, 2005, and ordered respondent to pay petitioner ₱1,200.00 with legal interest at 6% per annum from receipt of the extrajudicial demand on October 14, 2010.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC, ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the MTCC. On November 23, 2011, the RTC dismissed the petition, finding that it was filed only to circumvent the non-appealable nature of small claims cases under Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure on Small Claims Cases. The RTC ruled that it could not supplant the MTCC decision with another decision directing respondent to pay a bigger sum. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on February 16, 2012, prompting the instant petition before the Supreme Court.

• Propriety of Certiorari Remedy: Petitioner argued that the RTC erred in dismissing its Rule 65 petition for certiorari, as the extraordinary writ remains available even in small claims cases where appeal is not allowed, to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner maintained that the MTCC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that it failed to establish with certainty respondent's obligation and in not ordering respondent to pay the full amount sought to be collected.
• Proper Forum: Petitioner contended that it filed the petition for certiorari before the proper forum, the RTC, which has jurisdiction over petitions assailing dispositions of first-level courts.

N/A — The decision does not recount respondent's arguments before the Supreme Court.

• Availability of Certiorari: Whether the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner's recourse under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the subject small claims case.

• Availability of Certiorari: Yes. The RTC erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was an improper remedy. The proscription on appeals in small claims cases does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which is an original action designed to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.

• Availability of Certiorari: Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases provides that the decision shall be final and unappealable. Consequently, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party may immediately move for its execution. However, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court cited Okada vs. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation, which held that "the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." The Court also cited Jaca vs. Davao Lumber Co. and Conti vs. Court of Appeals, which established that the availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari where appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy, and sufficient. The Court addressed the RTC's apprehension that the petition was filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of small claims cases, explaining that a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment. It is incumbent upon petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC Decision, and the RTC could either grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether the MTCC gravely abused its discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence material to the controversy. The Court further found that petitioner filed the petition before the proper forum, as the Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari. However, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that petitions for certiorari against first level courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. Considering that small claims cases are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, certiorari petitions assailing their dispositions should be filed before their corresponding Regional Trial Courts. Thus, the RTC erred in dismissing the petition, and RTC Case No. 11-13833 was reinstated and remanded for proper disposition.

• Availability of Certiorari Despite Proscription on Appeal — The extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The proscription on appeals in small claims cases does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, provided that the petition alleges jurisdictional errors constituting grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors of judgment.
• Certiorari vs. Appeal — A petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment. The petitioner must establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the lower court's decision, and the reviewing court may grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether the lower court gravely abused its discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence material to the controversy.
• Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts — The Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari. However, such concurrence does not give a party unbridled freedom to choose the venue of his action. Petitions for certiorari against first level courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals, before resort may be had before the Supreme Court.

• "Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its execution. Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi: the finality of small claims decisions bars appeals but not the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
• "In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that 'the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.'" — This quotation from Okada vs. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation articulates the canonical formulation of the availability of certiorari.
• "Verily, a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment." — This passage distinguishes certiorari from appeal, establishing the jurisdictional limitation of the remedy.
• "To be sure, the Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari. Such concurrence of jurisdiction, however, does not give a party unbridled freedom to choose the venue of his action lest he ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts." — This passage explains the application of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts to certiorari petitions.

• Okada vs. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 164344, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 124 — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Jaca vs. Davao Lumber Co., 198 Phil. 493 (1982) — Cited for the proposition that the availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari where appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy, and sufficient.
• Conti vs. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 956 (1999) — Cited for the definition of "plain, speedy, and adequate remedy" as one which will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment complained of.
• Republic vs. Narceda, G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 483 — Cited for the proposition that the proscription on appeals in certain proceedings does not preclude the filing of a petition for certiorari.
• Dy vs. Hon. Bibat-Palamos, G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013 — Cited for the proposition that a petition for certiorari is an original action.
• Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Villamater, G.R. No. 179169, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 182 — Cited for the standard of grave abuse of discretion as capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary disregard of evidence material to the controversy.
• Rayos vs. The City of Manila, G.R. No. 196063, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 684 — Cited for the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in relation to the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court, Court of Appeals, and Regional Trial Courts to issue writs of certiorari.

• Section 23, Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) — Provides that the decision in a small claims case shall be final and unappealable. The Court held that this proscription on appeals does not preclude the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Section 24, Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases — Provides that the prevailing party may immediately move for execution of the decision, consistent with the final nature of small claims decisions.
• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides for the remedy of certiorari where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Provides that if the petition relates to an act or omission of a municipal trial court, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area. The Court applied this provision to hold that certiorari petitions against small claims decisions should be filed with the corresponding Regional Trial Court.
• Sections 2 and 4, Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases — Provides that small claims cases are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, which informed the Court's application of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

• Carpio, J. (Chairperson)
• Brion, J.
• Del Castillo, J.
• Perez, J.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the decision.