G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988
Petronio Collado and Romualda Collado, petitioners, vs. Hon. Harold M. Hernando as Presiding Judge, Branch I, Court of First Instance of Abra, Juanito F. Go, May V. Go, Agripino Brillantes and Juliana B. Brillantes, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership of a residential lot in Bangued, Abra, alleging they purchased it in 1952 and possessed it until private respondents occupied it in 1975. Private respondents claimed ownership through a different chain of title originating from a 1942 sale, asserting possession through tenants until they sold the property to respondent-spouses Go in 1975. After a pre-trial conference, the respondent judge issued an order stating the parties, through their counsel, had agreed to submit the case for decision based on documentary evidence to be submitted within 15 days and on their respective manifestations regarding the intended testimonial evidence.
Thereafter, without conducting a trial, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint based solely on the marked documentary evidence and the counsels’ pre-trial manifestations. Petitioners moved to set aside the judgment, denying any agreement to submit the case for decision without trial, but their motion was denied. They then filed this special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering judgment without trial, and if so, whether the extraordinary writ of certiorari is the proper remedy.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion, but the writ of certiorari shall not issue. The Court found the procedure adopted by the judge highly irregular. A judgment was rendered based merely on marked (but not formally offered) documentary evidence and on counsels’ summaries of intended testimonial evidence, without conducting a trial where witnesses could be examined and cross-examined. This deprived the parties of their right to due process, as the facts were squarely in dispute and required a full trial on the merits for resolution. The judge’s act of deciding the case without trial constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power equivalent to an excess of jurisdiction.
However, the Court held certiorari was not the proper remedy because petitioners had an appeal available, which they had in fact already pursued by filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The existence of this appeal was not disclosed in their petition to the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and may only be invoked when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. By simultaneously pursuing an appeal and a certiorari petition, petitioners engaged in forum-shopping, an act of bad faith that misleads the courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Court admonished petitioners’ counsel for forum-shopping and reminded the respondent judge to faithfully comply with procedural rules.