GR 204528; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 204528 ; February 19, 2013
SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, DIRECTOR NONNATUS R. ROJAS and DEPUTY DIRECTOR REYNALDO O. ESMERALDA, Petitioners, vs. MAGTANGGOL B. GATDULA, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Magtanggol B. Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo against petitioners, including the Secretary of Justice and NBI officials, alleging a threat to his life and liberty from a purported frame-up for frustrated murder. Instead of immediately evaluating the petition to determine if the writ should issue, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Manila, under Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr., improperly treated it as an ordinary action. The court issued summons, ordered the filing of an Answer, conducted hearings, and eventually rendered a “Decision” granting the writ and interim reliefs like production and inspection orders. Petitioners argued that the proper responsive pleading in an Amparo proceeding is a Return, filed only after the court issues the writ. They elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to annul the RTC’s decision and to restrain its implementation.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed a grave procedural error in its handling of the Amparo petition, thereby rendering its “Decision” granting the writ subject to appeal via Rule 45.
RULING
No, the Petition for Review under Rule 45 was premature. The Supreme Court clarified the summary and extraordinary nature of Amparo proceedings. The rule mandates an immediate judicial evaluation of the petition and its supporting affidavits upon filing. Based solely on this evaluation, the court must either forthwith issue the Writ of Amparo or dismiss the petition. The issuance of the writ is an interlocutory order that sets the case for hearing; it is not a final judgment. The court’s subsequent hearing is for the purpose of determining whether the interim protection and reliefs prayed for should be made permanent. The final, appealable order is the judgment rendered after this summary hearing. Consequently, the RTC’s “Decision” granting the writ was interlocutory, not final. Therefore, an appeal via Rule 45 was improper at that stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being the wrong remedy. It directed the RTC judge to correctly apply the Amparo procedure by determining, within 48 hours, the propriety of issuing the writ based solely on the petition and affidavits, warning against further procedural deviations.