G.R. No. 85661, June 25, 1990
Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr., Enrique de Zuzuarregui, and Pacita Javier, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, The Hon. Judge Ramon P. Makasiar, Br. 35 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila and Toribio T. Bella, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Toribio T. Bella, an attorney, filed a complaint against petitioners for collection of attorney’s fees for services rendered in an expropriation case, alleging breach of a written commitment to retain him until the case’s final determination. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss this complaint on three grounds: failure to state a cause of action, splitting a cause of action, and litis pendentia due to another pending case (Civil Case No. Q-39001) where Bella was also seeking attorney’s fees from petitioners for services in a different, unrelated case for quieting of title.
The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss. It ruled that the two complaints were founded on entirely different facts and causes of action—one for breach of contract in an expropriation proceeding and the other on quantum meruit for services in a quieting of title case. Consequently, there was no splitting of a cause of action or proper ground for litis pendentia. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE

Whether the denial of the motion to dismiss is a proper subject for a petition for certiorari.

RULING

No, the denial is not a proper subject for certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the certiorari petition, holding that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory. The general rule, as reiterated in consistent jurisprudence, is that such an interlocutory order cannot be reviewed by certiorari. The proper remedy for a dissatisfied movant is to allege the grounds of the motion as defenses in an Answer, proceed to trial, and, if the judgment is adverse, to appeal in due course.
The Court found no exception to this rule warranting certiorari. For certiorari to lie against an interlocutory order, there must be a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The trial court committed no such abuse. Its ruling was correct on the merits, as the two lawsuits involved distinct causes of action arising from separate legal services rendered in unrelated cases. Since the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and without caprice, and an adequate remedy (i.e., answer and appeal) was available to petitioners, the special civil action for certiorari was an improper remedy. The petition was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.