G.R. No. 192491 . August 17, 2016.
MARY JANE G. DY CHIAO, PETITIONER, VS. SEBASTIAN BOLIVAR, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, IN NAGA CITY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The petitioner, Mary Jane G. Dy Chiao, was declared subsidiarily liable to pay P5,711,164.00 in a final and executory CA decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 44261). The RTC, Branch 19, Naga City, as the court of origin, issued a writ of execution. The sheriff reported that the principal obligor had no assets, so an alias writ was issued against the petitioner’s properties. Two parcels were sold at public auction on November 21, 2008. Subsequently, the respondent sheriff issued a notice of levy dated March 10, 2009, and a notice of sale dated April 15, 2009, for two other parcels of the petitioner’s land, setting a public auction for May 15, 2009. The petitioner claimed these further proceedings were without a court order or alias writ and without notice to her. To stop the auction, she filed a “Petition for Prohibition with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction” before the RTC, Branch 23, Naga City, which issued a 72-hour TRO. RTC Branch 23 dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the sheriff’s acts were proceedings in the civil case still pending before RTC Branch 19, which retained supervision. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to File Verified Petition for Review on Certiorari” with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 111113), indicating she would raise questions of law. The CA denied the motion and terminated the case, holding that a petition raising only questions of law must be filed directly with the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The CA denied her motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA correctly denied the petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Verified Petition for Review on Certiorari on the ground that it should have been filed with the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the RTC Branch 23 correctly dismissed the original Petition for Prohibition for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

1. Yes. The CA properly denied the motion and terminated the case. The petitioner’s manifest intention to appeal raising only questions of law meant the proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed directly with the Supreme Court. An appeal raising only questions of law erroneously brought to the CA shall be dismissed outright pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner failed to perfect her appeal to the Supreme Court within the reglementary period.
2. Yes. The RTC Branch 23 correctly dismissed the Petition for Prohibition for lack of jurisdiction. A losing party cannot seek relief from the execution of a final judgment by filing a separate action in another court. This contravenes the policy of judicial stability and non-interference. The proper recourse is to seek relief from the court that issued the writ of execution (RTC Branch 19), which exercises control and supervision over the sheriff’s proceedings. The sheriff acts as an agent of the issuing court. The petitioner’s remedy was to question the sheriff’s acts before RTC Branch 19, and if denied, to appeal to a higher court. The Court affirmed the CA’s resolution.