G.R. No. L-17928; April 30, 1960
SERVILLANO DE LA CRUZ, JR., and CRISANTO DE LA CRUZ, petitioners, vs. ASUNCION D. STA. MARIA as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of LUIS DOMINGO, SR., LUIS DOMINGO, CONSUELO DOMINGO-LOPEZ, PETRONILA DOMINGO, NIEVES DOMINGO, ESPERANZA TIENZO, and HON. JAVIER PABALAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Branch VI), respondents.

FACTS

A judgment in a foreclosure suit was rendered against the respondents. After their failure to pay, mortgaged properties were sold at public auction on July 29, 1960, with petitioners as the highest bidders. The respondents objected to the confirmation of this sale, arguing the prices were unconscionably low and questioning the ownership of some parcels. On October 12, 1960, the trial court issued an order confirming the sheriff’s sale. Subsequently, on November 10, 1960, the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of this confirmation order. The trial court granted this motion in an order dated December 2, 1960, setting aside its prior confirmation and granting the respondents a ten-day period to redeem the properties by depositing the redemption price, which they did on December 8, 1960. The petitioners then moved for reconsideration of this December 2 order, which was denied on December 15, 1960.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders of December 2 and December 15, 1960, which set aside the confirmed auction sale and allowed redemption, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of appealable orders and the availability of the remedy of appeal. An order confirming a public auction sale in a foreclosure suit is a final order that is appealable. The period for perfecting an appeal from the October 12, 1960 confirmation order was suspended by the timely filing of the respondents’ motion for reconsideration on November 10, 1960. Consequently, when the trial court issued the December 2, 1960 order granting reconsideration and allowing redemption, the case was still within its jurisdiction, as the period for appeal had not yet lapsed. The court’s act of reconsidering its own order while it retained jurisdiction does not constitute grave abuse of discretion; it is a legitimate exercise of judicial authority. Since the petitioners had the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of appealing the December 2 order, the extraordinary writ of certiorari is not available. Certiorari only lies when there is a grave abuse of discretion and no other appeal is available. Here, an appeal was the correct remedy, not certiorari.