GR 163655; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163655 , June 16, 2006
Inocencio Alimboboyog, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Paz Noble-Noblefranca, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Paz Noble-Noblefranca filed a DARAB case against petitioner Inocencio Alimboboyog for collection of rentals and ejectment. The Provincial Adjudicator ruled in her favor. Alimboboyog’s notice of appeal was denied for being filed out of time, and a writ of execution was implemented. Four years later, the DARAB Central Office reversed the Provincial Adjudicator, relaxing the rules to admit the late appeal. Noblefranca then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the DARAB decision and reinstated the original ruling.
In filing her petition with the Court of Appeals, Noblefranca served a copy on Alimboboyog himself at his address, despite his being represented by counsel throughout the prior proceedings. Alimboboyog received the appellate court’s decision in late March 2004 and informed his counsel in May 2004. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, Alimboboyog filed the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing he was deprived of his day in court due to improper service.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals decision on grounds of improper service and lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is procedural. While Noblefranca’s service of her petition on Alimboboyog instead of his counsel was indeed a flawed procedural step under Rule 13, this defect did not automatically warrant certiorari relief. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Here, Alimboboyog had such a plain and adequate remedy: a motion for reconsideration filed with the Court of Appeals. By his own admission, he received the decision and could have, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period to raise the issue of improper service and seek corrective action. His failure to exhaust this available remedy, without a compelling explanation, precludes recourse to certiorari. The Court cannot allow a party to bypass the hierarchy of remedies. The petition was thus dismissed for being an improper remedy, rendering a discussion on the substantive merits of the agrarian case unnecessary.