G.R. No. L-3658 December 23, 1950
EULOGIO ABOGAA, MARTIN DE CENON and ROMAN MARATAS, petitioners, vs. GO SAM and MANUEL P. BARCELONA, Judge, Court of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a civil case against respondent Go Sam for recovery of overtime wages and one month salary. While this civil case was pending, a criminal case against Go Sam for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 444 (Eight-Hour Labor Law) was also pending. The trial court dismissed the civil case on the ground of lis pendens (another action pending). After Go Sam was acquitted in the criminal case, petitioners moved to revive the civil case. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the acquittal extinguished the civil liability arising from the criminal offense. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the revival of their civil complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the extraordinary writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the trial court’s order denying the motion to revive the civil case.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The proper remedy was an appeal, not certiorari. The Court held that the order denying the motion to reinstate the complaint was a final order, not interlocutory, from which an appeal was available. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari does not lie where an appeal is available to the aggrieved party. The Court did not reach the substantive issue of whether the acquittal in the criminal case barred the civil action, as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

AI Generated by Armztrong.