G.R. No. L-6436; June 30, 1954
Ofrecino T. Santos, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ofrecino T. Santos filed an action (Civil Case No. 241) in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato to recover P1,628 from Teodulo M. Cruz and Valentin C. Garcia. He secured a writ of preliminary attachment, which was levied upon a tractor. The tractor, however, was owned by the Philippine Reconstruction Corporation, Inc. (respondent), which filed a third-party claim. Petitioner filed an amended complaint including the respondent as a defendant, but Civil Case No. 241 was dismissed by the Cotabato court for lack of jurisdiction (the amount being less than P2,000). Petitioner then filed a similar action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Buayan, Cotabato, against the respondent alone, and won, but that decision was the subject of a pending certiorari proceeding. Subsequently, the respondent filed Civil Case No. 13778 in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the petitioner, seeking damages for the wrongful attachment of its tractor. The Manila court declared the petitioner in default, heard the respondent’s evidence, and rendered a decision ordering the petitioner to pay damages. Instead of appealing this decision, the petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioner’s motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 13778 as invalid and in sustaining the default order.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its treatment of the petitioner’s petition for relief from the order of default.
3. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 13778 for damages arising from an attachment issued by the Court of First Instance of Cotabato.
4. Whether the petitioner was barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction.
5. Whether certiorari was the proper remedy instead of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the procedural issues (motion to dismiss, default, petition for relief), the Court held it unnecessary to decide their propriety because the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal from the decision on the merits of Civil Case No. 13778, of which he was duly notified. Certiorari does not lie when the remedy of appeal is available.
2. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that the Court of First Instance of Manila correctly took cognizance of the case. The respondent’s claim for damages was not based on the allegation that the writ of attachment in the Cotabato case was illegally issued, but on the theory that the petitioner caused the writ to be levied upon the tractor of the respondent, who was not a party to the original case. The filing of an amended complaint in the Cotabato case did not cure this defect, as the seizure was under the original writ. Furthermore, the general rule that claims for damages from an attachment should be presented in the same action (as stated in Cruz vs. Manila Surety) did not apply because: (a) the Cotabato case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, so that court could not render a final judgment including damages; and (b) avoidance of multiplicity of suits presupposes the competence of the court in the first case.
3. The petitioner was not estopped from raising the jurisdictional issue, but the Court found that the Manila court had jurisdiction.
4. The petition for certiorari was improper as appeal was the available remedy. The decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila was affirmed.