G.R. No. 142424 ; July 21, 2006
JOSE A. BERNAS, petitioner, vs. SOVEREIGN VENTURES, INC., respondent.

FACTS

Jose A. Bernas and Sovereign Ventures, Inc. both hold registered titles to the same parcel of land in Quezon City. Respondent filed a Petition for Quieting of Title with an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to prevent the annotation of notices of lis pendens on the titles, alleging it would prejudice a planned sale. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an Order directing the maintenance of the status quo and temporarily restraining such annotations. Petitioner assailed this Order via an Omnibus Motion, arguing he was not notified of the case raffle as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 20-95 (now Rule 58, Section 4(c) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). The RTC denied his motion, finding the absence of notice was “cured” by his participation in the subsequent hearing. Petitioner later discovered a notice of raffle had been sent to his former law office. The RTC eventually granted the writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioner’s subsequent petitions to the Supreme Court were dismissed on procedural grounds. He then filed a motion to dismiss the main case in the RTC for lack of jurisdiction due to the alleged defective raffle, which was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, in issuing the Order for a TRO and preliminary injunction despite the alleged lack of notice of raffle.

RULING

The petition lacks merit. The procedural requirement under Rule 58, Section 4(c) mandates notice of the raffle to the adverse party and the raffle’s conduct in their presence when an application for a TRO or preliminary injunction is included. The records show a notice of raffle was sent to petitioner’s former address. More critically, petitioner voluntarily submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction by participating in hearings, filing an Omnibus Motion, and submitting a memorandum on the injunction application. This voluntary appearance cured any procedural defect in the raffle notice. Furthermore, the assailed Order denying the motion to dismiss is interlocutory; a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to challenge it absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The proper course is to await final judgment and then appeal. The Court of Appeals correctly found no such grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision and warned against further similar petitions.