GR L 27807; (August, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27807, August 31, 1970
Leonora S. Palma, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hon. Jose Oreta, Provincial Sheriff of Rizal and Q. & S., Inc., Respondents-Appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Leonora S. Palma filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to nullify a decision and writ of execution issued by respondent Judge Jose Oreta of the City Court of Caloocan in an ejectment case against her. Her petition alleged that at the time the decision was rendered on May 25, 1962, there was a restraining order in effect prohibiting the respondent Judge from proceeding with the case. However, in a motion to dismiss filed by respondent Q. & S., Inc., it was revealed that the restraining order had been set aside by the Court of First Instance of Rizal on March 9, 1962, well before the decision was rendered. The lower court found that the petitioner willfully and deliberately withheld this information from her petition. Consequently, the Court of First Instance, presided by Judge Fernando Cruz, dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition. The petitioner appealed this dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition for failure to state a cause of action, considering the petitioner’s willful omission of the fact that the restraining order had been lifted prior to the challenged decision.
RULING
Yes, the order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court sustained the lower court’s dismissal. The petitioner’s failure to disclose that the restraining order had been lifted as of March 9, 1962, was a willful omission that rendered her petition devoid of merit. Since the restraining order was no longer in effect when the decision was rendered on May 25, 1962, the respondent Judge had the authority to act, and his decision had long become final and executory. The issuance of the writ of execution was therefore a ministerial duty. The Court rejected the petitioner’s technical argument that the lower court should have relied solely on the allegations in her petition, emphasizing that procedural rules should not be applied rigidly to sacrifice substantial justice. The Court cited established jurisprudence that technicalities should not hinder justice and expressed disapproval of counsel’s conduct in deliberately omitting a vital fact to mislead the court. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.