Tagle vs. Equitable PCI Bank

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45 where the Court of Appeals has issued a final order or resolution; the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, and the filing of a prohibited second motion for reconsideration does not toll the reglementary period to appeal.

Petitioner Alfredo Tagle owned a property registered in his name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-143715, located at Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan, which he claimed was constituted as a Family Home under the Family Code. The property was mortgaged to respondent Equitable PCI Bank pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney executed by petitioner, securing the obligation of spouses Josefino and Emma Tagle. After Josefino's death and default in payment, the bank foreclosed the mortgage, consolidated title in its name, and sought a writ of possession from the RTC. Petitioner opposed the writ on the ground that the property was a Family Home exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment under Article 155 of the Family Code.

Petitioner Alfredo Tagle is the registered owner of a property located at Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-143715. He claims to have constituted the property as a Family Home in accordance with the Family Code. According to petitioner, he and his wife Arsenia Bautista Tagle never mortgaged the subject property to respondent Equitable PCI Bank. Rather, it was Josefino Tagle, who was not the owner of the property, who mortgaged it with the bank. Josefino was paying the installments on the mortgage obligation and had paid more than half thereof, but passed away. Petitioner was then forced to assume Josefino's outstanding mortgage obligation. Even as petitioner was already paying the installments, the bank foreclosed the mortgage.

Respondent Equitable PCI Bank presents a different account. The property was formerly registered in petitioner's name and was mortgaged pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney executed by petitioner to secure the obligation of spouses Josefino and Emma Tagle with the bank. The mortgage transaction was executed on May 9, 1997. Upon default by spouses Josefino and Emma, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and, after the expiration of the redemption period, consolidated and transferred the title to the property in its name.

Thereafter, the bank filed with the RTC, Branch 82, City of Malolos, Bulacan, a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession, docketed as LRC Case No. P-71-2004. Petitioner filed a Motion to Stop Writ of Possession on the ground that the property was a Family Home exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment. The RTC denied the motion in its Order dated April 4, 2005, holding that the mortgage transaction occurred on May 9, 1997, after the effectivity of the Family Code, and that under Article 155, the case did not fall within the exemptions from execution because it stemmed from a mortgage transaction. The RTC likewise denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in its Order dated June 21, 2005. Petitioner then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90461. The appellate court dismissed the petition outright on September 6, 2005 for failure to attach certified true copies of the April 4, 2005 RTC Order and the Motion to Stop Writ of Possession. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on February 16, 2006, and his Second Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied on April 11, 2006, the appellate court holding that a second motion for reconsideration of a final order is prohibited. Petitioner then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.

• Family Home Exemption: Petitioner argued that the subject property, being a Family Home, is exempt from foreclosure of mortgage, and that the mortgage was not constituted before or after the constitution of the Family Home by him.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461.
• Period to File: Petitioner maintained that the 60-day period within which to file the Petition for Certiorari should be reckoned from receipt of the April 11, 2006 Resolution denying his Second Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the Rules of Court do not distinguish whether the denial is of a first or second motion for reconsideration.
• Applicability of Rule 52, Sec. 2: Petitioner asserted that Rule 52, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure is not applicable because what is applicable is a second motion for reconsideration in the Supreme Court.
• Verification: Petitioner argued that the verification based on personal knowledge is proper because the Rules of Court do not distinguish whether the facts are based on personal knowledge or authentic records.

• Wrong Remedy and Procedural Defects: Respondent countered that the petition failed to comply with the technical requirements for petitions for certiorari: (a) it was filed out of time, the 60-day period being reckoned from receipt of the February 16, 2006 Resolution denying the first Motion for Reconsideration, not the April 11, 2006 Resolution; (b) petitioner did not allege that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (c) the petition lacked proper verification and was considered an unsigned pleading; and (d) the petition requested an injunction without stating the grounds therefor.
• Prohibited Second Motion for Reconsideration: Respondent argued that petitioner's second Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Court of Appeals is prohibited by Sec. 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court.
• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent maintained that, arguendo, even if the petition were properly filed, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for failure to submit the required documents.
• Substitute for Lost Appeal: Respondent concluded that the present Petition for Certiorari was filed not to question the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals but as a vain hope of appealing the RTC Order dated April 4, 2005.

• Propriety of Remedy: Whether a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to seek the reversal of the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for failure to attach certified true copies of the required documents.
• Family Home Exemption: Whether the subject property, being a Family Home, is exempt from foreclosure of mortgage.

• Propriety of Remedy: No. The proper remedy was a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, the CA resolutions being final orders, and the availability of appeal barred resort to certiorari under Rule 65.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for non-compliance with Sec. 1, Rule 65 in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 46, which require the attachment of certified true copies of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof and other relevant documents.
• Family Home Exemption: Not reached. The Court declined to delve into the merits of the Family Home exemption issue, the petition having been dismissed on procedural grounds.

• Propriety of Remedy: The September 6, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 was a disposition on the merits and therefore a final order. The subsequent resolutions denying reconsideration were likewise final. Under Rule 45, decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals are appealable to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari. Because appeal was available, the third requisite for certiorari — that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law — was wanting. The remedies of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive, not alternative or cumulative. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially where the loss was occasioned by the petitioner's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies. Furthermore, petitioner's filing of a prohibited second motion for reconsideration did not toll the running of the 15-day period to appeal; the reckoning date was receipt of the February 16, 2006 Resolution denying the first Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner's failure to file within that period rendered the CA resolutions final and executory and deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Sections 1 and 3 of Rules 65 and 46, respectively, plainly require that the petition be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, along with other relevant and pertinent documents, and explicitly state that failure to comply is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition precisely because petitioner failed to attach certified true copies of the April 4, 2005 RTC Order and the Motion to Stop Writ of Possession. Such dismissal was a faithful application of the procedural rules and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. While the Court has, in exceptional circumstances, treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari — particularly when filed within the reglementary period, when errors of judgment are averred, and when sufficient reason justifies relaxation — none of these exceptions apply here. Petitioner filed out of time and offered no explanation for his procedural lapses.

• Family Home Exemption: The Court found no need to delve into the substantive issue of whether the subject property was exempt from foreclosure as a Family Home, given that the petition was dismissible on procedural grounds. The Court also noted that petitioner was essentially using the Petition for Certiorari to seek reversal of the RTC's April 4, 2005 Order rather than to assail the CA resolutions, which could not validly be done absent any showing of error of judgment or jurisdiction by the appellate court.

• Certiorari vs. Appeal — Mutually Exclusive Remedies — The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. A special civil action for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal where the latter remedy is available, especially if the loss was occasioned by one's own negligence or error in the choice of remedies. The requisites for certiorari are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

• Final Orders of the Court of Appeals — Appealable via Rule 45 — Decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals, regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, are appealable to the Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process. A resolution dismissing a petition on the merits is a final order, not an interlocutory one, where the proceedings are terminated and nothing remains to be done by the appellate court.

• Prohibited Second Motion for Reconsideration — Does Not Toll Period to Appeal — A second motion for reconsideration is not allowed under Sec. 5, Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court. Its filing does not toll the running of the period to file an appeal by certiorari. The reckoning date for the 15-day period to appeal is the date of receipt of the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

• Requirement to Attach Certified True Copies — Mandatory — Under Sec. 1, Rule 65 in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 46, a petition must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. Failure to comply with any of these requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition.

• "A special civil action for Certiorari, or simply a Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." — This passage defines the limited scope and purpose of certiorari under Rule 65, distinguishing it from ordinary appeal.

• "The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative." — This is the canonical formulation of the principle that certiorari cannot serve as a substitute for a lost appeal, central to the Court's dismissal.

• "And since a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed, then unavoidably, its filing did not toll the running of the period to file an appeal by certiorari." — This establishes that a prohibited second motion for reconsideration has no legal effect on the reglementary period, a critical procedural rule for practitioners.

• "The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition." — This quotation from Sec. 3, Rule 46 underscores the mandatory nature of the documentary requirements for petitions under Rule 65.

• Madrigal Transport Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, G.R. No. 156067, August 11, 2004 — Followed. This case provided the comprehensive framework distinguishing a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 from a special civil action for Certiorari under Rule 65, covering purpose, manner of filing, subject matter, period of filing, and need for a motion for reconsideration.
• Pure Foods Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78591, March 21, 1989 — Cited within Madrigal to explain that errors of judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction are not correctable through certiorari, as every error would otherwise deprive the court of jurisdiction.
• Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121687, October 16, 1997 — Followed. Held that decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, regardless of the nature of the action, may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review, which is a continuation of the appellate process.
• Heirs of Placido Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 674 (1996) — Followed. Established that a resolution dismissing a petition is a final order, not an interlocutory one, where the proceedings are terminated and nothing remains to be done by the appellate court.
• Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755 (2003) — Followed. Cited for the definition of "without jurisdiction," "excess of jurisdiction," and "grave abuse of discretion," and for the requisites of certiorari.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari, requiring that it be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. Applied to hold that petitioner's failure to attach the required documents justified the CA's dismissal.
• Section 3, Rule 46, Revised Rules of Court — Specifies the contents and filing requirements for petitions, including the attachment of certified true copies, and provides that failure to comply is sufficient ground for dismissal. Applied in conjunction with Rule 65 to uphold the CA's dismissal.
• Section 1, Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that a party may appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court via a verified petition for review on certiorari, raising only questions of law. Applied to establish that the proper remedy was a Rule 45 petition, not a Rule 65 certiorari.
• Section 2, Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Requires that the petition be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of a timely filed motion for new trial or reconsideration. Applied to hold that the period was reckoned from receipt of the February 16, 2006 Resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration.
• Section 5, Rule 37, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed. Applied to hold that the filing of a second motion for reconsideration did not toll the period to appeal.
• Article 155, Family Code — Provides exemptions from execution, forced sale, or attachment of the Family Home. The RTC applied it to deny petitioner's motion, holding that the mortgage transaction of May 9, 1997 fell outside the exemptions. The Supreme Court did not reach this issue.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Ruben T. Reyes concurred with the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.