GR 132358; (April, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132358 ; April 12, 2002
MILA YAP SUMNDAD, petitioner, vs. JOHN WILLIAM HARRIGAN and BORACAY BEACH CLUB HOTEL, INC., (BBCHI), respondents.
FACTS
John William Harrigan filed a collection case against Boracay Beach Club Hotel, Inc. (BBCHI) for the payment of loans and advances amounting to at least P8 million. Harrigan alleged these funds were provided pursuant to a joint venture agreement with petitioner Mila Yap Sumndad for developing a resort on her land, which was assigned to BBCHI. The trial court granted Harrigan’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Sumndad filed a motion for leave to intervene, which was granted. However, instead of filing the required complaint or answer in intervention, she filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. After her motion was denied, she filed multiple motions for extensions but failed to file an answer. Consequently, the trial court declared her in default.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Supreme Court can review the factual and procedural rulings of the lower courts via a petition for review on certiorari, given that petitioner was declared in default and subsequently availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals instead of appealing the default order.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic is anchored on procedural rules and the hierarchy of remedies. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Sumndad’s proper recourse after being declared in default was to appeal the order within the reglementary period. By failing to do so and instead filing a special civil action for certiorari, she availed of an incorrect remedy. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed her petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed this. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of law. The petitioner’s attempt to raise issues regarding her personality to intervene and the trial court’s jurisdiction are unavailing, as these matters should have been raised in a timely appeal. The default order having become final, the trial court’s judgment based on the pleadings against BBCHI stands. The Court emphasized that litigants must follow procedural rules, and the extraordinary writ of certiorari is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.