G.R. No. 76028; April 6, 1990
SPOUSES JOSE R. LANSANG, JR. and ELSIE D. LANSANG and ROBERTO CO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL L. GUMBAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch XXIII, RENATO SALANGSANG and INTERWORLD ASSURANCE CORP., represented by EVANGELINE B. BACONGCO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Renato Salangsang filed a damages suit against petitioners arising from a vehicular accident. After pre-trial and the presentation of Salangsang’s evidence, the trial was reset to November 8, 1984. Petitioners and their counsel failed to appear on that date. The court deemed the case submitted for resolution and subsequently rendered a judgment awarding Salangsang substantial damages, including a daily unrealized income award of P250.00 from December 1981 until the damaged car’s return, potentially totaling around P600,000.00. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, effectively a motion for new trial, explaining their absence: their counsel had urgent parliamentary work, one petitioner was in Manila due to a death in the family, and another was out of town. The trial court denied the motion.
Petitioners filed a notice of appeal from the decision and the denial order, but also indicated an intent to file a petition for certiorari contesting the denial order. The trial court approved the appeal. Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals specifically targeting the order denying their motion for new trial, while expressly stating they were not abandoning their perfected appeal. The appellate court dismissed the certiorari petition, ruling that by filing it, petitioners had abandoned their appeal, as the remedies were inconsistent. Execution of the trial court’s judgment was granted.

ISSUE

1. Is the remedy of appeal inconsistent with the remedy of certiorari?
2. Under the circumstances, did petitioners abandon their appeal by filing a petition for certiorari contesting the order denying their motion for new trial?

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the assailed decisions and orders and remanding the case for new trial. The Court held that the appellate court erred in its rigid application of procedural rules. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are not inherently inconsistent. A petition for certiorari may be availed of even after judgment and during the pendency of an appeal when the appeal is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The right to appeal is deemed abandoned only if certiorari is used as a substitute for a lost appeal, not when it addresses a specific interlocutory order while the appeal on the merits remains pending.
Here, petitioners’ certiorari petition specifically assailed the trial court’s order denying their motion for new trial—an order that involved the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Their appeal from the main judgment remained a separate recourse. More critically, the Court found that the circumstances justified a liberal application of the rules to serve substantial justice. Petitioners’ explained absence was potentially excusable, and the staggering monetary award, based solely on the plaintiff’s evidence, raised serious concerns about its proportionality. Denying petitioners their day in court under these conditions, due to a technical and overly strict interpretation of procedure, would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. The rules of procedure should be instruments to facilitate, not frustrate, justice.