G.R. No. 124512 ; June 27, 2006
MA. ROSARIO SUAREZ, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR., RTC, Pasig City, Branch 156 and SPS. ESCOLASTICO & CORDELIA BALLAR, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Rosario Suarez filed a complaint for specific performance against respondent spouses, who were residents of the United States. After the denial of their motion to dismiss, respondents filed their answer nearly a year later. The case proceeded to pre-trial and trial commenced in August 1995. The continuation of the trial was repeatedly impeded by successive motions for postponement filed by both parties. The hearings set for August 21, September 11, 21, and 28, 1995, were all postponed upon motions by the parties. The trial was reset to October 23, 1995, then to December 7, 1995, and finally to February 15, 1996, largely at the instance of petitioner’s counsel.
On February 15, 1996, both petitioner and her counsel failed to appear. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging her former counsel’s terminal illness caused the non-appearance. The RTC denied the motion, ruling the period for appeal could not be extended.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the petition directly filed before it, challenging the RTC orders dismissing the case for failure to prosecute and denying the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being an improper remedy and for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The RTC’s order of dismissal for failure to prosecute is a final order that operates as an adjudication on the merits under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. The settled rule is that the remedy against a final order of dismissal is an appeal, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. An appeal to the Court of Appeals via a notice of appeal under Rule 41 is the correct procedure, as it involves a review of the trial court’s factual determination on the propriety of the dismissal.
Petitioner elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, raising mixed questions of fact and law regarding the circumstances leading to the dismissal. The resolution of whether the dismissal was proper necessitates an examination of factual matters, which is outside the Supreme Court’s primary jurisdiction under Rule 45, confined to questions of law. Furthermore, direct resort to the Supreme Court flouts the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, which mandates that appeals should first be brought to the appropriate lower appellate court, absent exceptional circumstances not present here. The petition was therefore dismissed for being filed via the wrong mode of appeal.