G.R. No. 112050 June 15, 1994
QUINTIN F. FELIZARDO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NEMESIO B. JOSE, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Nemesio B. Jose, owner-lessor of a house and lot in Olongapo City, filed an action for ejectment with an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner Quintin Felizardo in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Olongapo City. Summons was issued, indicating the application of the Rule on Summary Procedure. In his answer, Felizardo averred that Jose’s allegations supporting the preliminary injunction were false and intended to evade the requirement for prior barangay conciliation under P.D. 1508 (the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law). During the preliminary conference and in his position paper, Felizardo questioned the MTC’s jurisdiction and the sufficiency of Jose’s cause of action due to non-compliance with P.D. 1508. The MTC rendered judgment against Felizardo and later issued an order for execution of its decision. On the same date as the execution order, Felizardo filed a petition for certiorari with an application for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City. The RTC initially issued a temporary restraining order but later dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari was not the proper remedy as appeal was still available. The Court of Appeals sustained the dismissal. Felizardo’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the special civil action for certiorari instituted by the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court was the proper remedy to challenge the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court.

RULING

No, the petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of certiorari is available only where a tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot substitute for an ordinary appeal. The MTC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case and over the person of Felizardo. The question of whether the MTC erred in proceeding despite the alleged lack of prior barangay conciliation involved a procedural question constituting, at most, an error of judgment reviewable only on appeal, not an error of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari. Furthermore, Felizardo had plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available under Rule 70, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which allows a defendant to stay immediate execution of an ejectment judgment by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas bond, and depositing accruing rentals during the appeal’s pendency. Felizardo did not avail himself of these remedies. The Supreme Court also noted that even assuming certiorari was proper, the MTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding Jose’s application for preliminary injunction sufficient to bring the case under an exception to the prior conciliation requirement. The petition was denied and the appealed judgment affirmed.