G.R. No. 155806 ; April 8, 2008
TIBLE & TIBLE COMPANY, INC., HEIRS OF EMILIO G. TIBLE, JR., namely: ALMABELLA MENLA VDA. DE TIBLE, EMILIO M. TIBLE IV, MA. MYLENE TIBLE, VICTOR M. TIBLE, ERIC M. TIBLE, ALLAN M. TIBLE, petitioner, vs. ROYAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION (now assigned to COMSAVINGS BANK) and GODOFREDO E. QUILING, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Calamba, Laguna, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners obtained a loan from respondent Royal Savings and Loan Association (RSLA). A compromise agreement was approved by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cavite, wherein petitioners admitted their indebtedness and agreed to a payment schedule. The agreement stipulated that default on any installment would render the entire obligation immediately due and executory. Upon petitioners’ default, RSLA moved for execution ex parte. The CFI granted the motion and issued a writ of execution. Subsequently, an alias writ was issued, leading to a public auction sale of petitioners’ properties in 1983, with RSLA as the highest bidder. A final deed of sale was issued a decade later in 1993.
Petitioners filed an action for annulment of the execution sale with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City. The RTC dismissed the case, ruling it was the CFI of Cavite that had jurisdiction. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC Naga’s dismissal order. The CA dismissed the Rule 65 petition outright due to procedural defects, primarily the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC order before resorting to certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The filing of a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory precondition for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This requirement is not a mere technicality but a crucial condition that allows the lower court an opportunity to correct its own alleged error and provides the reviewing court with a more complete record of its proceedings. The petitioners failed to proffer any compelling reason to justify their non-compliance with this rule. Their claim that the RTC’s dismissal order was a patent nullity did not constitute a valid exception, as the alleged error was not so grave or jurisdictional as to warrant immediate recourse to certiorari without first seeking reconsideration. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are distinct and mutually exclusive; certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that demands strict adherence to procedural rules. The petitioners’ failure to observe the rule on prior motion for reconsideration warranted the dismissal of their petition.