G.R. No. 268216, February 26, 2024
CARIDAD PACHECO, PETITIONER, VS. JIMMY F. REYES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Jimmy F. Reyes (respondent) is the lawful possessor of a lot in Payatas, Quezon City. Petitioner Caridad Pacheco and her late husband, Ramon Pacheco, Sr. (spouses Pacheco), entered into a Contract of Lease with the respondent on September 20, 2012, for a monthly rental of PHP 6,000.00. Starting April 1, 2017, the spouses Pacheco failed to pay the monthly rentals. Despite several demands to pay and vacate, including a demand letter dated August 5, 2017, and a personally tendered demand letter dated February 11, 2019, they remained in possession and made no payment. The respondent filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). In their Answer, the spouses Pacheco claimed ownership of the property, denied receiving the demand letters, and argued the action had prescribed. The MeTC ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the spouses to vacate, pay accrued rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC Decision on appeal. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition outright, citing the improper remedy (certiorari instead of appeal under Rule 42), the finality of the RTC Decision, and procedural deficiencies such as the lack of a proper Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and failure to attach relevant pleadings. The CA also denied the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition for Review on Certiorari and AFFIRMED the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The CA correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari as it was an improper remedy. An appeal via a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is the correct mode to assail a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The petitioner’s resort to certiorari was improper even with an ascription of grave abuse of discretion, as the availability of an appeal forecloses the certiorari path. Furthermore, the CA correctly noted the petition’s procedural flaws, including the lack of a proper Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and the failure to attach necessary pleadings, which are sufficient grounds for outright dismissal under Sections 3 and 5, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. The Court found no reversible error in the CA’s resolutions.