GR L 72622; (October, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-72622 October 28, 1988
VICTOR TORNO, RODOLFO TORNO, and ELENA TORNO, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. WILLELMO C. FORTUN and SPOUSES FELIPE AND ADA MABILANGAN, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, the Mabilangan spouses, filed a forcible entry case against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). During the trial, petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing for the cross-examination of the respondents’ last witness. The MTC, upon motion, issued an order declaring the cross-examination waived and allowed respondents to rest their case ex-parte. Petitioners later filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching an affidavit from their counsel explaining her absence due to a sprained ankle and a medical certificate. The MTC denied the motion, citing the failure to attach an affidavit of merit showing a valid defense. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), challenging the MTC’s orders.
While the certiorari petition was pending, the MTC proceeded to render a decision in the main forcible entry case in favor of the respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate the premises. Petitioners received this decision but did not appeal it. The RTC eventually dismissed the certiorari petition, and petitioners elevated the matter to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).
ISSUE
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court correctly dismissed petitioners’ appeal, considering the finality of the MTC’s decision in the main forcible entry case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the IAC’s decision. The core legal logic rests on the doctrine of finality of judgments. The Court emphasized that while petitioners were pursuing a collateral challenge via certiorari against the MTC’s interlocutory orders (the waiver of cross-examination and denial of reconsideration), the MTC had already rendered a final and executory judgment on the merits of the forcible entry case. Records showed petitioners received the MTC’s decision but did not file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period. By allowing the period for appeal to lapse, the MTC’s judgment became final and executory by operation of law.
Consequently, the issue regarding the propriety of the MTC’s interlocutory orders was rendered moot and academic. A final judgment can no longer be disturbed, grounded on fundamental public policy that litigation must end at some definite point. The Court cannot review alleged errors in proceedings leading to a judgment that has already attained finality. The proper recourse from the MTC’s decision was a timely appeal, not a separate certiorari action challenging procedural incidents. Since petitioners forfeited that right of appeal, the final judgment must stand, and the prevailing party is entitled to its execution as a matter of right. The dismissal of the petition for certiorari by the RTC and the IAC was therefore correct.