GR 152092; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152092; August 4, 2010
PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. RADIOMARINE NETWORK, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PILTEL) and respondent Radiomarine Network, Inc. (RADIOMARINE) entered into a Contract to Sell on December 12, 1996, wherein RADIOMARINE agreed to purchase a Makati lot for ₱560,000,000.00. The terms required a ₱180,000,000.00 down payment, with any outstanding payables PILTEL owed to RADIOMARINE for cellular phone deliveries to be credited against the balance, which was due on or before April 30, 1997. Contemporaneously, PILTEL sent a “best effort” letter expressing willingness to purchase 300,000 cellular phone units from RADIOMARINE in 1997. RADIOMARINE failed to pay the ₱380,000,000.00 balance, alleging PILTEL reneged on its phone purchase commitment.
RADIOMARINE filed a complaint for rescission or partial specific performance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted RADIOMARINE’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ordering PILTEL to return the down payment of ₱180 million, less a forfeited amount and a prior cash advance, netting ₱112 million with interest. PILTEL’s petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed, prompting this Petition for Review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing PILTEL’s petition for certiorari and upholding the RTC’s grant of partial summary judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The core legal logic rests on the propriety of summary judgment and the limited scope of certiorari. Summary judgment is appropriate when, upon the pleadings and supporting affidavits, no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Here, the RTC correctly found no genuine issue regarding PILTEL’s obligation to return the down payment upon RADIOMARINE’s failure to pay the balance. The contemporaneous “best effort” letter for phone purchases was a separate, non-binding undertaking that did not affect the clear terms of the Contract to Sell. PILTEL’s defenses raised no triable issues of fact but merely legal arguments already subsumed within the summary judgment.
Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal. PILTEL failed to perfect an ordinary appeal from the RTC’s partial summary judgment. Certiorari is only available for lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The RTC’s interpretation of the contract and grant of summary judgment, even if allegedly erroneous, constituted an exercise of jurisdiction, not a grave abuse thereof. Absent a showing of capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment, the CA correctly refused to disturb the RTC’s order through the extraordinary writ of certiorari.