G.R. No. 117925 October 12, 1999
TENSOREX INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an ejectment judgment in favor of petitioner Tensorex. The defendants in the ejectment case filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which required them to post a P200,000.00 injunction bond, furnished by respondent Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. The CA eventually dismissed the certiorari petition and recalled the injunction. After execution of the ejectment judgment, a deficiency of P710,000.00 remained. Tensorex then moved in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) for an alias writ of execution against the injunction bond. The MTC granted the motion, treating the injunction bond as a supersedeas bond. Mercantile filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin the execution, which the RTC dismissed. Mercantile appealed this RTC dismissal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals initially dismissed Mercantile’s appeal for failure to file a memorandum. Mercantile moved for reconsideration, arguing it never received the notice to file the memorandum. The CA denied the motion. Mercantile then filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration. The CA, upon realizing its error—that the notice to file memorandum was never actually re-sent to Mercantile as previously ordered—issued a Resolution accepting Mercantile’s explanation, treating its earlier Comment as its Memorandum, and ordering Tensorex to file its own memorandum. Tensorex’s motion for reconsideration of this Resolution was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Resolution which effectively reinstated Mercantile’s appeal by accepting its Comment as the Memorandum and ordering further proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the court’s inherent power and duty to correct its own errors to serve the ends of justice. The CA found that its prior dismissal of the appeal was based on a mistaken premise that Mercantile had received the notice to file memorandum. The record showed the notice was ordered to be re-sent but was not actually mailed. Consequently, the period for Mercantile to file its memorandum had not lapsed, making the initial dismissal procedurally erroneous.
While a second motion for reconsideration is generally prohibited, the Court emphasized that procedural rules should be liberally construed to achieve just, speedy, and inexpensive determinations. The CA’s act of revisiting and rectifying its own error was a valid exercise of its adjudicative function to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court reiterated that certiorari is a remedy for jurisdictional errors, not for correcting errors of judgment. Since the CA acted within its jurisdiction and based its assailed Resolution on factual and legal justification, its action constituted neither whimsical nor capricious judgment. Tensorex failed to discharge its burden of proving grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition were unavailable. The petition was denied and the CA Resolution affirmed.