G.R. No. 203288, July 18, 2014
REMEDIOS M. MAULEON, Petitioner, vs. LOLINA MORAN PORTER, represented by ERVIN C. MORAN, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Lolina Moran Porter, represented by Ervin C. Moran, filed a complaint for ejectment (unlawful detainer) against petitioner Remedios M. Mauleon before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City. Respondent alleged she was the absolute owner of a property in Caloocan City, having purchased it from petitioner and her husband via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 28, 2007. Despite the sale, petitioner continued to occupy the property through respondent’s tolerance. After demands to vacate were refused, respondent instituted the ejectment case.
Petitioner defended by claiming the complaint was dismissible because respondent failed to include her husband as a party-plaintiff and because a prior action for annulment of documents, title, and reconveyance was pending between the parties before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 125.
During the preliminary conference on March 27, 2009, petitioner and her counsel failed to appear despite notice. Respondent moved for judgment pursuant to the Rules on Summary Procedure. The MeTC granted the motion and rendered a Decision dated April 24, 2009, ordering petitioner to vacate the property and pay attorney’s fees and costs.
Instead of appealing, petitioner filed various motions before the MeTC, including a motion for reconsideration. Respondent filed a motion for execution. The MeTC, in an Order dated August 18, 2009, denied petitioner’s motions and granted respondent’s motion for execution.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC, seeking to nullify the MeTC Decision and the August 18, 2009 Order, arguing grave abuse of discretion due to alleged violation of due process, the merit of her motion for postponement, her counsel’s negligence, and the pendency of the annulment case. The RTC dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of petitioner’s certiorari petition (i.e., whether the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its Decision and issuing the Order of execution).

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no reversible error in the CA’s decision.
The Court clarified that petitioner properly availed of certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC, as an order of execution is generally not appealable. However, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC.
The MeTC was justified in rendering judgment after petitioner and her counsel failed to appear at the mandatory preliminary conference without a justifiable cause. Petitioner’s counsel filed an urgent motion for postponement on the same day as the hearing, only after the MeTC judge had already granted respondent’s motion for judgment. This motion violated the three-day notice rule under the Rules of Court and thus deserved scant consideration. A party has no right to assume a motion for postponement will be granted.
The Court also held that the pendency of an action for annulment of documents and reconveyance does not abate an ejectment suit, as ejectment cases involve only the issue of possession de facto and are independent of questions of ownership.
Furthermore, petitioner was not deprived of due process. She was afforded the opportunity to be heard, and she was bound by the negligent acts of her counsel. No grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the MeTC Decision and the Order for its execution.