G.R. No. 159118; June 28, 2004
VICTOR B. CUÑADA and HEDY V. CUÑADA, petitioners, vs. HON. RAY ALAN T. DRILON as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 41, Bacolod City, and PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Victor and Hedy Cuñada filed a Request for Correction, asserting they timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s September 17, 2003 Resolution, which dismissed their Petition for Certiorari. The motion was mailed on November 11, 2003, within the reglementary period, but was received by the Court only on March 15, 2004. Consequently, they argued the dismissal resolution never attained finality and the subsequent Entry of Judgment should be recalled.
The underlying case originated from a 1981 complaint for recovery of a deficiency judgment filed by respondent Planters Products, Inc. after the extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the petitioners. After protracted proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision in 2001 based solely on plaintiff’s evidence, as petitioner Victor Cuñada failed to complete his testimony despite multiple hearing settings, having left for the United States.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration and admit their Amended Petition.

RULING

No. The Motion for Reconsideration is denied, and the Amended Petition is noted without action. While the Entry of Judgment is recalled because the seasonably filed motion prevented the dismissal from attaining finality, the motion itself lacks merit. The original Petition for Certiorari was correctly dismissed on three substantive grounds. First, petitioners failed to submit a verified statement of material dates as required under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, a ground for outright dismissal. Their subsequent attempt to cure this via an Amended Petition does not warrant reconsideration.
Second, certiorari was a wrong remedy. The assailed RTC decision was a final determination of the parties’ rights; thus, the proper recourse was a regular appeal, not a special civil action under Rule 65, which applies only where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Third, petitioners violated the doctrine of judicial hierarchy by filing the petition directly with the Supreme Court instead of with the Court of Appeals. No special or compelling reasons were alleged to justify this direct resort. On the merits, the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the case and rendering judgment based on the evidence presented, as petitioners waived further presentation of their evidence by their failure to complete testimony. The substantive law on deficiency judgments after foreclosure was also correctly applied.