G.R. No. L-26619 March 27, 1971
ZENITH FILMS, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE B. HERRERA AND UNITED FILMS ENTERPRISES INC., respondent-appellee.

FACTS

United Films Enterprises, Inc. filed a collection suit against Zenith Films, Inc. in the City Court of Manila. The summons, received by Zenith on April 19, 1966, ordered it to answer and enter trial on May 5, 1966. Instead of an answer, Zenith filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 1966, challenging venue, the plaintiff’s capacity to sue, and the complaint’s cause of action. This motion lacked a notice of hearing. United Films moved to declare Zenith in default for not filing an answer within the five-day period under the rules. The City Court, without notifying Zenith of this motion, granted it, received evidence ex parte, and rendered a default judgment on April 30, 1966—five days before the summons’ stated deadline for answer and trial.
On May 5, the scheduled trial date, Zenith’s counsel appeared and learned of the judgment. Zenith moved to lift the default, arguing its motion to dismiss suspended the answer period. The City Court denied this. Zenith then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI), seeking to annul the default judgment. The CFI dismissed the petition, ruling certiorari was improper as appeal was available. Zenith appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that appeal, not certiorari, was the proper remedy.

RULING

No, the CFI did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that certiorari was indeed not the proper remedy because the City Court’s error was a mere error of judgment, not a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that while the City Court may have erred in its procedural application—particularly in declaring default before the answer period in the summons had even expired—such error is correctible by ordinary appeal. Certiorari under Rule 65 is only available when there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and when the lower tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. An error in the interpretation or application of law, like the one committed here regarding the effect of a motion to dismiss without a notice of hearing and the proper period to answer, does not constitute grave abuse of discretion. It was a mistake within jurisdiction. Therefore, Zenith’s recourse was to appeal the default judgment, not to bypass it via certiorari. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rules of procedure should not be applied rigidly to defeat substantial justice, but the availability of appeal precludes the special remedy of certiorari.