Pacheco vs. Reyes

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 42, and where the reglementary period has lapsed, the judgment becomes final and immutable by operation of law, barring any further modification regardless of the mode of recourse employed.

Respondent Jimmy F. Reyes is the lawful possessor of a lot in Payatas, Quezon City, having acquired it by virtue of a Subrogation/Transfer of Rights and Improvement dated February 5, 2004. Petitioner Caridad Pacheco and her late husband, Ramon Pacheco, Sr., entered into a contract of lease with respondent over the subject property at a monthly rental of PHP 6,000.00, commencing October 1, 2012. The dispute arose when the spouses stopped paying rentals beginning April 1, 2017 and refused to vacate despite repeated demands, prompting respondent to initiate barangay conciliation proceedings and, ultimately, an action for unlawful detainer.

Respondent Jimmy F. Reyes is the lawful possessor of a lot located at No. 39 Visayas Street, Group 3, Area B, Payatas, Quezon City, having acquired the same from Benedicto Roquid by virtue of a Subrogation/Transfer of Rights and Improvement dated February 5, 2004. Petitioner Caridad Pacheco and her late husband, Ramon Pacheco, Sr., as lessees, entered into a contract of lease with respondent at a monthly rental of PHP 6,000.00, payable on the first day of each month, commencing October 1, 2012.

Starting April 1, 2017, the spouses Pacheco ceased paying the monthly rentals. Despite several demands to pay and vacate—including a demand letter dated August 5, 2017, which they received—they remained in possession of the subject premises. Respondent filed a complaint against the spouses before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of Barangay Payatas, Quezon City, but they allegedly ignored the complaint and refused to amicably settle, leading to the issuance of a Certificate to File Action dated July 10, 2017. On February 13, 2019, respondent, through UP-OLA Law Intern Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, personally tendered a demand letter dated February 11, 2019, demanding that the spouses pay PHP 66,000.00 in overdue rentals and vacate the lot, which they used as a junk shop. The spouses allegedly refused to receive and sign the demand letter, and Artiaga executed an Affidavit of Service dated February 22, 2019 to prove personal tender.

On April 13, 2019, respondent filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages before the MeTC. Summons was served on the spouses on April 22, 2019. In their Answer with Compulsory Counter Claim filed on May 6, 2019, the spouses denied respondent's claim, asserting they were the true owners of the subject property, having acquired it from the Acopiado estate, the registered owner. They submitted a Deed of Assignment of Real Property to support their claim and argued that respondent was claiming a different property from the one they occupied. They denied receiving the demand letter and asserted that, as owners, they had every reason to refuse it. They further prayed for dismissal on the ground of prescription, contending they had been in open and continuous possession for more than 30 years and that the one-year period from the last demand to vacate on August 5, 2017 had already lapsed.

The MeTC, in its Decision dated September 21, 2020, found that respondent substantially proved his claim by preponderance of evidence. The court noted the spouses' judicial admission that they had entered into the Contract of Lease dated September 20, 2012 and that they stopped paying rentals after discovering respondent was not the real owner. Applying Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the MeTC held that as lessees, the spouses were estopped from denying the title of their landlord at the time the lease relationship commenced. The RTC affirmed this ruling in toto on July 9, 2021, finding that the documentary and testimonial evidence established that the spouses' right of possession was by virtue of a voluntarily executed lease contract, and that their possession became illegal upon default and demand. The RTC found that the spouses' denial of receipt of the February 11, 2019 demand letter could not outweigh the positive testimony and affidavit of service executed by respondent's counsel.

• Liberal Application of Procedural Rules: Petitioner averred that her failure to attach a verification and a certificate against forum shopping to the petition filed with the CA was merely due to inadvertence, and pleaded for liberal application of the rules, claiming that her subsequent submissions constituted substantial compliance.
• Unavailability of Rule 42 Appeal: Petitioner argued that Rule 42 of the Rules of Court was no longer an available remedy because the RTC judgment on appeal had already become final, executory, and unappealable under the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Court (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC).
• Wrong Remedy Justification: By implication, petitioner sought recourse through certiorari under Rule 65, ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the lower courts, in lieu of the ordinary appeal she deemed unavailable.

• Proper Remedy: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari outright, given that the proper remedy from an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is a petition for review under Rule 42, not certiorari under Rule 65.
• Procedural Compliance: Whether the petitioner's subsequent submission of verification and certification against forum shopping constituted substantial compliance sufficient to warrant relaxation of procedural rules.
• Applicability of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC: Whether the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts apply to a case filed before the MeTC on April 13, 2019, thereby affecting the availability and reglementary period of appeal.
• Finality of Judgment: Whether the RTC Decision dated July 9, 2021 had already become final and immutable by operation of law, precluding any further recourse.

• Proper Remedy: No. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal; the proper remedy from an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is a petition for review under Rule 42, regardless of whether the issues involve questions of fact, law, or mixed questions.
• Procedural Compliance: No. The subsequent submission was still inadequate—the verification and certification against forum shopping lacked attestation, and petitioner merely submitted the first page of her Position Paper—falling far short of substantial compliance under the guidelines in Quitalig vs. Quitalig.
• Applicability of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC: No. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC took effect on April 11, 2022 and applies prospectively only to cases filed from that date; the instant case was filed with the MeTC on April 13, 2019 and is governed by the rules applicable at the time of filing.
• Finality of Judgment: Yes. The RTC Decision and Order were received by petitioner's counsel on April 28, 2022, and the petition for certiorari was filed on the 50th day from receipt of the RTC Order denying the motion for reconsideration, well beyond the 15-day reglementary period for a Rule 42 petition, rendering the RTC decision final and immutable by operation of law.

• Proper Remedy: It is elementary that all appeals from judgments rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction—whether raising questions of fact, law, or mixed questions—shall be brought to the CA by filing a petition for review under Rule 42. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action intended solely for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari cannot be made a substitute for a lost appeal. Petitioner availed of the wrong mode of recourse when she filed a Rule 65 petition instead of a Rule 42 appeal.

• Procedural Compliance: Under the guidelines reiterated in Quitalig vs. Quitalig, non-compliance with the requirement on, or submission of a defective certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or compelling reasons. Here, the petitioner's subsequent submission was still inadequate—the verification and certificate against forum shopping lacked attestation, and she merely submitted the first page of her Position Paper. No compelling or justifiable reason was offered to warrant relaxation of the procedural rules. The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law and the rules.

• Applicability of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC: The Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts took effect on April 11, 2022 and expressly provide for prospective application only to cases filed from that date. Pending cases covered by the Rules, which were before the second and first level courts, shall remain with and be decided by those same courts based on the rules applicable at the time of filing. The categorical language of Rule V of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC leaves no room for interpretation. Since the unlawful detainer case was filed on April 13, 2019, the Rules on Expedited Procedures do not apply.

• Finality of Judgment: Even if the Court were to relax the rules and treat the Rule 65 petition as a Rule 42 petition, it was filed out of time. Petitioner's counsel received the RTC Order dated March 2, 2022 on April 28, 2022, yet filed the petition for certiorari only on the 50th day from receipt—well beyond the 15-day reglementary period for a Rule 42 petition. Judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law, not by judicial declaration, upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected. A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.

• Certiorari as Not a Substitute for Lost Appeal — A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action, independent from the principal action, intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that petitioner should have filed a Rule 42 petition for review, not a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, since the RTC rendered its decision in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

• Finality and Immutability of Judgments — Judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. A final decision becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the RTC Decision, having been received on April 28, 2022 with the petition filed 50 days later, had already become final by operation of law.

• Prospective Application of Procedural Rules — The Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) took effect on April 11, 2022 and apply prospectively only to cases filed from that date; pending cases remain governed by the rules applicable at the time of filing. The Court applied this principle to reject petitioner's invocation of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, since the case was filed in 2019.

• Guidelines on Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping — As reiterated in Quitalig vs. Quitalig, non-compliance with or a defect in the certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction, unless substantial compliance or compelling reasons justify relaxation. The certification must be signed by all petitioners and executed by the party-pleader, not counsel, unless a Special Power of Attorney authorizes counsel to sign. The Court applied these guidelines to find that petitioner's subsequent submission was still inadequate and did not constitute substantial compliance.

• "A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action, independent from the principal action, and not a part or a continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of. It is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." — This passage defines the nature and purpose of certiorari under Rule 65 and establishes why it cannot serve as a substitute for a lost appeal, forming the core ratio decidendi on the proper-remedy issue.

• "Judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed." — This articulates the doctrine of finality by operation of law, central to the Court's conclusion that the RTC Decision had become immutable and unalterable.

• "Indeed, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down." — This is the canonical formulation of the immutability-of-final-judgments doctrine, frequently cited in Philippine jurisprudence to bar any modification of final and executory judgments.

• Quitalig vs. Quitalig, G.R. No. 207958, August 4, 2021 — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the guidelines governing non-compliance with or defects in verification and certification against forum shopping, applying the distinction between curable verification defects and generally incurable certification against forum shopping defects.

• Rodis vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 215010, July 29, 2020 — Followed. Cited for the rule that all appeals from RTC decisions rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, regardless of the nature of the questions raised, shall be brought to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 42.

• Go-Yu vs. Yu, 851 Phil. 213 (2019) — Followed. Cited for the definition of certiorari under Rule 65 as an original action intended solely for correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and not a continuation of the trial.

• Cornworld Breeding Systems Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 204075, August 17, 2022 — Followed. Cited for the principle that certiorari may only be resorted to in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal.

• Heirs of Reyes vs. Director of Lands, 873 Phil. 468 (2020) — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that judgments become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration.

• Star Special Corporate Security Management, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit, 880 Phil. 822 (2020) — Followed. Cited for the doctrine of immutability and unalterability of final judgments.

• Section 2(b), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Provides that a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of the landlord at the time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship. The MeTC and RTC applied this provision to estop spouses Pacheco from contesting respondent's title and better right of possession over the subject property, as they had voluntarily entered into a lease contract.

• Rule 42, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review filed with the Court of Appeals from judgments of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The Court held this was the proper remedy available to petitioner, not certiorari under Rule 65.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the special civil action of certiorari, limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that petitioner's resort to Rule 65 was improper as it was used as a substitute for a lost appeal.

• Rule V, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts) — Provides that the Rules shall take effect on April 11, 2022 and prospectively apply only to cases filed from that date. The Court applied this provision to hold that the Rules did not govern the instant case, which was filed in 2019.

• Sections 3 and 5, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Authorize the outright dismissal of a petition for certiorari that fails to comply with requirements regarding verification, certification against forum shopping, and attachment of relevant documents. The CA invoked these provisions in dismissing the petition outright.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concurred.