Chua vs. Santos

An "alternative" petition invoking both Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari) and Rule 65 (special civil action for certiorari) is improper, as the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive; a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal merits outright dismissal. Furthermore, a certification against forum shopping signed by only one of several petitioners, without proof of authorization from the others, is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by substantial compliance.

Isabel C. Balles, married to Mariano Balles, owned residential land on Scout Chuatoco Street, Barangay Paligsahan, Diliman, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 339356. After the spouses' death, the title was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. ET-80465 issued in the names of their heirs — Benigno, Tomas, Norma, Manuel, and Lawrence Balles. The petitioners had occupied the property as lessees of Isabel Balles for more than ten years and, after the spouses' demise, continued paying rentals to Lawrence Balles, the only heir who had built his house on the property. The dispute arose when the registered heirs sought the demolition of the petitioners' houses and huts through the City Building Official's office, alleging that the structures were built without the requisite building and occupancy permits.

Isabel C. Balles, wife of Mariano Balles, owned a parcel of residential land on Scout Chuatoco Street, Barangay Paligsahan, Diliman, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 339356. Upon the spouses' death, the title was cancelled and TCT No. ET-80465 was issued in the names of their heirs: Benigno, Tomas, Norma, Manuel, and Lawrence Balles. The petitioners — Socorro Chua, Juan Tumala, Estelita Dionisio, Soledad Cudera, Severino Tamayo, Aurelio Nava, Evelyn Villanueva, Christopher Yanza, Adelaida Gonzales, Teofilo Ferreria, and Agapito Dimalanta — had occupied the property as lessees of Isabel Balles for more than ten years. After the spouses' demise, they continued in possession, paying rentals to Lawrence Balles, the only heir who had constructed his own house on the property. Throughout their occupancy, the registered owners had never disturbed their possession.

On November 28, 1996, the registered owners, through counsel, filed a letter-complaint with the City Building Office against the petitioners, docketed as Case No. 97-12, seeking the demolition of the petitioners' houses and huts on the ground that these had been constructed without the requisite building and occupancy permits and without the owners' knowledge. On March 31, 1997, Romualdo C. Santos, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the City Building Office, issued a Resolution ordering the petitioners to self-demolish their structures within fifteen days from notice, warning that failure to comply would result in demolition by the complainant at the petitioners' expense, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate charges for illegal construction/occupancy.

On April 21, 1997, the petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against Building Officer Santos and the registered owners, praying for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction. They alleged that respondent Santos had usurped judicial power by ordering the demolition of their houses, thereby impliedly ordering their eviction, and had deprived them of their constitutional right to due process. On September 25, 1997, the trial court denied the plea for a writ of preliminary injunction, relying on Section 301 of the National Building Code and Section 3.8 of Rule VII of its Implementing Rules. On November 4, 1997, the Building Official issued a Notice of Demolition.

The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, seeking nullification of the RTC's September 25, 1997 Order and praying for injunctive relief. On November 28, 1997, the appellate court dismissed the petition on three grounds: the certification against forum shopping was signed by only one petitioner in violation of Section 3, Rule 46; petitioners failed to accompany the affidavit of service with a written explanation for non-personal service as required by Section 11, Rule 13; and petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration, filed December 22, 1997 with a plea for liberal construction of the rules, was denied by the Court of Appeals on January 15, 1998. On January 19, 1998, the Assistant City Building Official issued an Order reiterating the demolition directive. On February 4, 1998, the petitioners received the appellate court's resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. On March 23, 1998, they filed the instant "alternative petition" before the Supreme Court.

• Liberal Construction of Rules: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their petition on technical grounds violated the policy of liberal construction of procedural rules and was contrary to applicable Supreme Court decisions.
• Illegality of Demolition Order: Petitioners contended that the questioned resolution and notice of demolition were illegal and unconstitutional, having been issued capriciously and whimsically without evidence to support them and in violation of P.D. No. 1096 and Rule VII of its Implementing Rules.
• Forum Shopping by Private Respondents: Petitioners maintained that the private respondents were guilty of forum shopping and had circumvented judicial proceedings to eject the petitioners.
• Error of the Trial Court: Petitioners asserted that the trial court judge failed to perceive the forum shopping scheme of the private respondents and gravely erred and abused his discretion in denying the petition for injunction without fully hearing both parties and despite the alleged illegality and unconstitutionality of the questioned resolution.
• Violation of R.A. 7279: Petitioners argued that the surprise partial demolition of their houses on February 10, 1998, without previous notices, violated the requirements of R.A. No. 7279 on demolition.
• Non-Applicability of P.D. 1096: Petitioners claimed that they had not violated P.D. No. 1096 because their houses were already in existence long before the National Building Code took effect in 1977.

• Propriety of Alternative Petition: Whether an "alternative" petition invoking both Rule 45 and Rule 65 is a proper mode of recourse before the Supreme Court.
• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition below on the ground that the certification against forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners without authorization from her co-petitioners.

• Propriety of Alternative Petition: No. The remedies of appeal under Rule 45 and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive; a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal merits outright dismissal under Rule 56, Section 5(f).
• Certification Against Forum Shopping: No. Substantial compliance does not suffice in matters requiring strict observance of the rules; the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or principal party with personal knowledge, and a single petitioner's signature without authorization from co-petitioners is a fatal defect.

• Propriety of Alternative Petition: The remedies of appeal and certiorari are distinct: a petition for review under Rule 45 is a continuation of the judgment complained of, while a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original and independent action. They are mutually exclusive and cannot be pleaded in the alternative. Under Section 5(f), Rule 56 of the Revised Rules of Court, a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal merits outright dismissal. The petitioners received the Court of Appeals' resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on February 4, 1998, giving them until February 19, 1998 to perfect an appeal under Rule 45. They failed to do so and instead filed the instant petition designating it as one under both Rule 45 and Rule 65. Certiorari under Rule 65 cannot serve as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal, especially where the loss was occasioned by the petitioner's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. While exceptions exist — such as when public welfare dictates, when the broader interest of justice requires, when the writs issued are null and void, or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority — none was shown to be present in this case.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Even assuming arguendo that recourse under Rule 65 were allowed, the same result would obtain because the appellate court's resolutions are in accord with the Rules of Court. Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides that the plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath the certification against forum shopping. In the petition before the Court of Appeals, the verification/certification was signed only by petitioner Socorro Chua. There was no showing that she was authorized by her co-petitioners to represent them and sign the certification, nor could it be presumed that she knew, to the best of her knowledge, whether her co-petitioners had filed similar actions or claims. The attestation requires personal knowledge by the executing party, and petitioners must show reasonable cause for the failure to personally sign. Substantial compliance does not suffice in a matter involving strict observance of the rules, and utter disregard of the rules cannot be rationalized by invoking the policy of liberal construction. In view of these conclusions, the Court deemed it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised.

• Mutually Exclusive Remedies (Rule 45 vs. Rule 65) — The remedies of appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. A petition for review under Rule 45 is a continuation of the appellate process, while certiorari under Rule 65 is an original and independent action. A wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal merits outright dismissal. Certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of ordinary appeal, especially where the loss was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. Exceptions exist when: (a) public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) the writs issued are null and void; or (d) the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping — Strict Compliance Required — Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath, in the complaint or initiatory pleading, that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, and to the best of his knowledge no such action is pending. The attestation requires personal knowledge by the party executing the certification. Where there are multiple petitioners, the certification must be signed by each or by a duly authorized representative; a single petitioner's signature without proof of authorization from co-petitioners is a fatal defect. Substantial compliance does not suffice in matters requiring strict observance of the rules.

• "The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the impropriety of designating a petition as alternative under both Rule 45 and Rule 65, a point emphasized as elementary for every lawyer.

• "It is elementary that the special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available, as it was in this case." — This formulation articulates the controlling principle that Rule 65 may not cure a failure to timely file a petition for review under Rule 45, particularly where the lapse was occasion by one's own neglect.

• "We find that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance by the rules. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same." — This passage defines the standard for certification against forum shopping: strict compliance, not substantial compliance, is required, and personal knowledge of the executing party is indispensable.

• Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152568, February 16, 2004 — Cited for the proposition that a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal merits outright dismissal.
• Linzag vs. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 304 (1998) — Cited for the rule that certiorari under Rule 65 will not be allowed as a substitute for failure to timely file a petition for review under Rule 45 or for the lost remedy of appeal.
• Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 870 (1997) — Cited for the principle that decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review under Rule 45, as a continuation of the appellate process.
• National Irrigation Administration vs. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 255 (1999) — Cited for the requirement that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must show the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. JANCON Environmental Corp., 375 SCRA 320 (2002) — Cited for the enumerated exceptions to the general rule that certiorari may not substitute for a lost appeal.
• Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 338 SCRA 62 (2000) and Decena vs. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658 (2001) — Cited for the rule that substantial compliance does not suffice in matters involving strict observance of the rules on certification against forum shopping.

• Section 5(f), Rule 56, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal merits outright dismissal. Applied to dismiss the petitioners' "alternative" petition invoking both Rule 45 and Rule 65.
• Section 1, Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or denial of the motion for reconsideration. Applied to determine that petitioners had until February 19, 1998 to perfect their appeal but failed to do so.
• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath, in the complaint or initiatory pleading, that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of his knowledge no such action is pending. Applied to sustain the Court of Appeals' dismissal where only one of eleven petitioners signed the certification without authorization from the others.
• Section 3, Rule 46, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires that the certification against forum shopping be signed by all petitioners in a special civil action for certiorari. Cited by the Court of Appeals as a ground for dismissal.
• Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires that service of pleadings be done personally whenever practicable, with a written explanation when service is made by other means. Cited by the Court of Appeals as a ground for dismissal.
• Section 301, National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096) and Section 3.8, Rule VII, Implementing Rules of P.D. No. 1096 — Relied upon by the trial court in denying the petitioners' plea for a writ of preliminary injunction.

Puno, Austria-Martinez, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario (on leave), JJ., concurred.