G.R. No. 233460 , February 19, 2020
Tessie A. Fernandez, Petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, Twenty-Third Division, Cagayan de Oro City, and Salvio F. Arguelles, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tessie A. Fernandez, a teacher, was charged with Grave Slander before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City, by respondent Salvio F. Arguelles, president of the Parent-Teacher Community Association. The incident occurred on November 21, 1997, arising from a conflict related to a teachers’ strike against the school principal. The prosecution’s version was that petitioner confronted respondent, pointed a finger at his face, made a fist sign, and shouted “Bullshit ka!” multiple times. The defense version was that petitioner, after a brief conversation with respondent, went to the teachers’ lounge and, out of disgust, shouted “Bullshit!” to herself. The MTCC acquitted petitioner, finding the guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt, reasoning that the word “Bullshit ka,” uttered in the heat of anger during a strenuous relationship, was not of a serious and insulting nature, analogous to cases where stronger expressions were deemed not libelous. Respondent appealed the civil aspect to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC’s acquittal and held that the acquittal, based on a finding that the accused did not commit the imputed act, barred the civil action. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC, awarding moral damages (P25,000) and exemplary damages (P25,000) to respondent, and later, upon respondent’s motion, added attorney’s fees (P10,000). The CA ruled that the MTCC acquitted based on reasonable doubt, not a finding of non-commission of the act, thus civil liability could be pursued. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA’s decision and resolution.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the RTC and MTCC rulings and awarding moral and exemplary damages to respondent.
2. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to respondent.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is improper to assail a CA judgment, final order, or resolution; the correct remedy is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court noted that petitioner filed the Rule 65 petition 46 days after receiving the CA Resolution denying her motion for reconsideration, thereby losing her right to appeal under Rule 45, which has a 15-day reglementary period. The Court declined to treat the petition as one under Rule 45 in the interest of substantial justice, emphasizing that procedural rules are not to be disregarded and that the invocation of substantial justice is not a magic potion to set aside technical rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution.