G.R. No. 221046 . January 22, 2020.
SPOUSES AGERICO ABROGAR AND CARMELITA ABROGAR, PETITIONERS, V. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On October 14, 1996, petitioners Spouses Agerico and Carmelita Abrogar obtained a loan of P11,250,000.00 from respondent Land Bank of the Philippines, secured by a real estate and chattel mortgage. Petitioners defaulted on the loan, prompting Land Bank to initiate extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings. To stop the foreclosure, petitioners filed a Complaint for specific performance and damages with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 51, Puerto Princesa City. They prayed that the RTC order Land Bank to allow them to settle their obligation pursuant to a Letter dated October 5, 1998, which contained the bank’s proposed terms for loan restructuring. The RTC dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of action in its Decision dated April 1, 2011, ruling that loan restructuring is a privilege, not a demandable right. The RTC denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated November 25, 2013. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition in its Resolution dated June 23, 2014, for being the wrong mode of appeal and for lack of an affidavit of service. The CA emphasized that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, and even if treated as an ordinary appeal, it was filed beyond the reglementary period. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 22, 2015. Petitioners subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari outright for being the wrong mode of appeal.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA Resolutions. It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 may only be resorted to when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal; the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. In this case, the RTC Decision dated April 1, 2011, was rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; thus, the proper recourse for petitioners was an ordinary appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, not certiorari under Rule 65. Since an ordinary appeal was available, the CA correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.
Petitioners argued for a liberal application of the rules, claiming they should not be bound by their former counsel’s negligence in choosing the wrong remedy, as it would deprive them of property without due process. The Court found this argument untenable. The negligence of counsel binds the client, including mistakes in procedural rules. The exception applies only when the counsel’s reckless or gross negligence deprives the client of due process, which requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the counsel’s error was so palpable and maliciously exercised that it could be a basis for disciplinary action. Petitioners merely alleged gross negligence without showing any malicious intent on the part of their former counsel. Malice is never presumed and must be proved as a fact, which petitioners failed to do. Consequently, there is no basis to relax the procedural rules. The RTC Decision has long attained finality due to petitioners’ failure to appeal within the reglementary period, and the Supreme Court can no longer exercise its appellate jurisdiction to review it.