G.R. No. L-2744; May 30, 1950
GAUDENCIO D. DEMAISIP and MODESTA P. DEMAISIP, petitioners,

vs.
QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, CONSTANTINO Z. CANTO, Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, FILEMON BALBASTRO, City Sheriff of Iloilo, MANUEL DUEÑAS, JOVITA B. DE DUEÑAS, CESAR PARCON, LUIS BAYAG, and VICENTE BAYONETA, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 768, the petitioners (plaintiffs below) sued for the delivery of 180 cavans of palay. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued, and 92 cavans were seized. The defendants posted a counterbond, leading to an order for the release of the attached palay. The petitioners failed to comply with multiple court orders to return the 92 cavans. Consequently, the defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint and for the petitioners and their surety (Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation) to pay damages. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint and ordering the petitioners and the surety to pay the value of the palay (P1,610) and the bond amount (P1,000), respectively. The court later ordered the immediate execution of the payment order. The petitioners filed a motion to post a bond to stay execution pending appeal, which was denied. The petitioners then filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the trial court’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the special civil action for certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy to challenge the trial court’s orders dismissing the complaint and ordering execution.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The proper remedy for the petitioners was an ordinary appeal, not a special civil action. The petitioners had initially appealed the dismissal order but failed to elevate the record on appeal to the Supreme Court within a reasonable time, leading to the presumption that they had abandoned their appeal. Consequently, the dismissal order had become final and executory. Certiorari is only available when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Since the petitioners had the right to appeal but abandoned it, they cannot resort to certiorari. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court, as the petitioners’ continued defiance of court orders to return the attached property justified the dismissal and the award of damages.

AI Generated by Armztrong.