GR 210855; (December, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210855 , December 09, 2015
ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P. OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO, AND JUDITH OBRERO-TIMBRESA, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondents, registered owners of a beachfront property, filed an ejectment case (forcible entry) against petitioner Rolando Abadilla, Jr. before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) after he allegedly entered the property with armed men, blocked access, and demolished structures. That complaint included a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, which was later deemed abandoned. Subsequently, respondents filed a separate complaint for injunction and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), praying that Abadilla be enjoined from inflicting further damage on their persons and property and that damages be awarded.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the RTC case on the ground of forum-shopping, arguing both cases sought the same reliefs from the same facts. The RTC agreed and dismissed the injunction case with prejudice, finding identity of facts, causes of action, subject matter, and reliefs prayed for, including the injunction and damages.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari filed by respondents, instead of an ordinary appeal, to assail the RTC’s order of dismissal.
RULING
Yes, the CA erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA’s decision. The RTC’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice was a final order, as it terminated the proceedings in that case, leaving nothing more for the trial court to do. Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, a final order is appealable via a notice of appeal. The proper remedy against such a final order of dismissal is an ordinary appeal, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It is available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Here, the RTC acted within its jurisdiction in dismissing the case; any error was an error in the exercise of that jurisdiction, correctible by appeal. The CA’s reliance on the relaxation of procedural rules to prevent irreparable damage was misplaced, as the availability of an ordinary appeal precluded the resort to certiorari. The Court reinstated the RTC’s orders dismissing the injunction case.