GR 156067; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156067 ; August 11, 2004
MADRIGAL TRANSPORT, INC., petitioner, vs. LAPANDAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION; MACONDRAY AND COMPANY, INC.; and LUIS P. LORENZO JR., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Madrigal Transport, Inc. filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 49. Subsequently, it filed a Complaint for damages against respondents before the RTC of Manila, Branch 36. The complaint alleged that respondents failed to deliver promised charter hire contracts under a joint venture agreement. The insolvency court declared Madrigal insolvent.
Respondents filed Motions to Dismiss the damage case before Branch 36. The trial court granted the dismissal, applying the Insolvency Law and ruling that upon the filing of the insolvency petition, Madrigal lost the right to institute the complaint, with the exclusive right to prosecute actions vesting in the court-appointed assignee. Madrigal’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Instead of appealing, Madrigal filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to set aside the dismissal orders.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari, holding that the proper remedy from the RTC’s order granting the motion to dismiss was an appeal, not certiorari.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 and an appeal are distinct, mutually exclusive remedies; they are not alternative or successive. A fundamental rule is that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Where the law provides an appeal as the remedy, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground alleged is grave abuse of discretion.
The RTC’s order granting the motion to dismiss was a final order that completely disposed of the case. As such, the proper and adequate remedy was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The fact that the motion was based on grounds like failure to state a cause of action or lack of capacity to sue (as argued by Madrigal) does not alter this rule. The exceptions where certiorari may be availed of despite the availability of appeal—such as when the appeal is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, or when the order is a patent nullity—were not convincingly established in this case. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that would justify a departure from the general rule. Consequently, Madrigal’s resort to certiorari was improper.