G.R. No. 165976 ; July 29, 2010
SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EDUARDO B. PERALTA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, SEABOARD-EASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PREMIER SHIPPING LINES, INC., and ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. (Sonic) shipped galvanized steel sheets aboard M/V Premship XIV, owned by respondent Premier Shipping Lines, Inc. The cargo was insured under a marine open policy from respondent Seaboard-Eastern Insurance Company, Inc., while Premier secured a separate insurance from respondent Oriental Assurance Corporation. The vessel’s master discovered the cargo was flooded with seawater during transit. Sonic’s indemnity claims were refused by the insurers, prompting it to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. Sonic later sought to amend its complaint to incorporate Sections 243 and 244 of the Insurance Code, which provide for interest in cases of unreasonable refusal to pay claims. The RTC denied the admission of the amended complaint.
Sonic filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition due to Sonic’s failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 1, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. Sonic’s motion for reconsideration was also denied for being filed out of time. Sonic thus elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Sonic’s petition for certiorari based on procedural lapses and in denying its motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Sonic received the CA Resolution denying reconsideration on September 29, 2004. Its proper remedy was to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within the reglementary period. Instead, Sonic filed the instant Rule 65 petition almost two months later. Certiorari is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Since an appeal via Rule 45 was available but not availed of, the petition for certiorari was improper.
Furthermore, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The CA’s dismissal was based on Sonic’s admitted procedural lapses in non-compliance with the Rules of Court. Such a ruling was within the CA’s legal authority and discretion. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Court are not mere technicalities but are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice. Liberal construction cannot be invoked to justify blatant disregard of the rules. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.