G.R. No. 166356; February 2, 2010
BENEDICTA M. SAMSON and MARCIAL M. SAMSON, Petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO., ATTY. JULIA CECILY COCHING-SOSITO, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR MARIKINA CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Benedicta M. Samson and Marcial M. Samson obtained a loan from respondent Far East Bank and Trust Co. (FEBTC), secured by a real estate mortgage over four parcels of land. Upon petitioners’ default, FEBTC applied for extra-judicial foreclosure. A Notice of Sheriff’s Sale was issued, setting the auction for June 8, 2000. The notice stated that if there were less than two bidders on that date, the sale would be postponed to June 29, 2000, without need of republication. On June 8, 2000, only FEBTC bid, so the sale was postponed to June 29, 2000, where the properties were sold to FEBTC as the highest bidder. Almost two years later, on June 4, 2002, petitioners and other Samsons filed a complaint for “Annulment of Extra-judicial Foreclosure and/or Nullification of Sale and the Certificates of Title, plus Damages and with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction” before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, questioning the validity of the June 29 auction for alleged lack of posting and publication. The RTC denied the application for TRO/preliminary injunction and later, on June 20, 2003, dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, as petitioners failed to move for pre-trial after the last pleading was filed. The RTC clarified this dismissal was “with prejudice” or an adjudication on the merits. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. While other plaintiffs appealed, petitioners Benedicta and Marcial Samson filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy since the RTC Order was a final judgment subject to ordinary appeal, and petitioners failed to show grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals denied their Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, specifically on the grounds that: (1) the RTC Judge gravely abused her discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute despite one defendant (the Ex-Officio Sheriff) not having filed an answer, and (2) the second public auction was invalid for lack of posting and publication.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy. A writ of certiorari lies only for errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The RTC Order dated June 20, 2003, which dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute, was a final judgment on the merits. The proper remedy from such a final judgment is an ordinary appeal, not a petition for certiorari. The availability of appeal precluded recourse to certiorari. Even assuming certiorari could lie, petitioners failed to demonstrate that the RTC Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The RTC issued the Order in accordance with Section 3, Rule 17 (dismissal for failure to prosecute) and Section 1, Rule 18 (duty to move for pre-trial) of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. There was no showing of a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment. The failure of the Ex-Officio Sheriff to file an answer did not excuse petitioners from their duty to move for pre-trial; they could have availed of other remedies like moving to declare her in default. The other issues raised by petitioners regarding the validity of the auction sale involved questions of fact not proper for the case.