G.R. No. 149224 ; September 1, 2004
MILAGROS G. FLORES, petitioner, vs. TERESITA BERCASIO and JOVITA CASTILLANO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Milagros Flores, a nurse based in New York, sold a property in Baguio City to respondents Teresita Bercasio and Jovita Castillano. The respondents executed a real estate mortgage over the property in favor of Flores to secure the balance of the purchase price. When respondents allegedly defaulted on payments, Flores and her husband filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage. During pre-trial, Flores amended the complaint, dropping her husband as a plaintiff. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, ruling that Flores had no legal capacity to sue without joining her husband, who was deemed an indispensable party.
Flores received the RTC decision on January 3, 2001, and filed a Notice of Appeal on January 11, 2001. While this ordinary appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, Flores filed a motion for leave and a 15-day extension to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, claiming she mistakenly filed an ordinary appeal. She subsequently filed her petition for certiorari on March 26, 2001. The CA denied her motion for extension and dismissed the petition, ruling it was filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari and dismissed the petition.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly denied the motion and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s resolution based on three key legal points. First, on procedural timeliness, the 60-day period to file a Rule 65 petition expired on March 6, 2001. While the CA may grant a maximum 15-day extension for compelling reasons, the extended deadline would have been March 21, 2001. The petition filed on March 26, 2001, was indisputably late, warranting dismissal.
Second, on the nature of the remedy, the RTC’s dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party constituted an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only for correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. An ordinary appeal was the correct remedy to challenge the RTC’s legal interpretation.
Third, the petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy through the ordinary appeal she had already perfected. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive; the availability of appeal bars the resort to certiorari. The Court found no compelling reason to relax procedural rules, emphasizing that strict adherence is required to ensure orderly judicial administration. The pending ordinary appeal provided the petitioner a sufficient avenue for relief.