MARTINEZ v BUEN

Robert C. Martinez Vs. Noel S. Buen

G.R. No. 187342

April 5, 2017

FACTS: 

Buen filed an Action for Recovery of Personal Property against Martinez on April 6, 2005 seeking the recovery of a Toyota Tamaraw Revo with plate no. WFG-276 declaring ownership of the said vehicle registered under his name. As the majority shareholder of Fairdeal Chemical Industries which he organized with Martinez, Buen said that he only allowed the company to use the said vehicle. Martinez, however, claimed that the vehicle was bought using the corporate funds, thus, resulting to his refusal to return the same to Buen.

When MeTC awarded the possession of the vehicle to Buen, Martinez filed a complaint for Qualified Theft against him in RTC-Manila Branch 19. On March 28, 2006, Buen failed to attend the hearing and prayed that the case be archived. Buen was ordered by MeTC to formalize his motion and for Martinez to comment within 10 days from the receipt thereof. Buen filed on March 31, 2006 and set the same for hearing on April 11, 2006. Martinez failed to attend the said hearing. He also did not file a comment to the Motion to Archive resulting to the granting of the said Motion on the said date.

On April 21, 2006, Martinez filed a Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Remand the Case to the Archives (Comment/Opposition) and prayed that the motion filed by Buen’s counsel be denied which was treated as a motion for reconsideration in an Order dated May 5, 2006. On July 18, 2006, Buen filed a Motion to Set Aside Order (of Dismissal).

Buen filed a Petition for Certeriori in the RTC, pleading that the MeTC acted in grave abuse of discretion when it treated Martinez’ Comment/Opposition as a motion for reconsideration of the Apri 11, 2006 Order. Martinez filed a Petition for Certeriori in the CA on December 13, 2007. He reiterated that a petition for certeriori in the RTC is not the proper remedy to challenge the MeTC’c Order of Aprill 11, 2006 and that Buen only filed the petition as a substitute for his lost appeal. In its decision dated December 19, 2008 (CA Decision), the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC and dismissed Martinez’ petition for certiorari.

Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the MeTC Order of Dismissal.

HELD: 

Yes. Ceteriori may be considered a proper remedy despite the availability of appeal or other remedy in the ordinary course of law because the second exception is existing in the case, which states: “(b)when the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment.” The MeTC gravely abused its discretion when it treated the Comment/Opposition filed by Martinez as Motion for Reconsideration of its order granting Buen’s Motion to Archive the case because of the following rationale:

The Motion for Consideration did not comply with the requisites for the same especially so, on the requirements of the notice of hearing, manner of service to the adverse party, and proof of service thereof which are all calculated to prevent surprise on the part of the adverse party who is Buen.

Regardless of the stipulation of the order made in accordance to Section 3, Rule17, the exact ground for dismissal was not specified leavingBuen (and the appellate courts) to speculate as to the same.

The MeTC granted a relief of not prayed for or in excess of what was sought by the party in his pleading.

The MeTC Order of Dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits. Thus, Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court applies. However, far from being clear, the MeTC Order of Dismissal left all the parties and the courts guessing as to its basis. It is therefore a patent nullity.

It is then held that an order of the court which is a patent nullity for the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court may be directly assailed through a petition for certeriori. Thus, Buen correctly availed on the remedy of certeriori to challenge the MeTC Order of Dismissal. Indeed, the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it treated the Comment/Opposition as a motion for reconsideration of the April 11, 2006 Order; and on the strength of the same reconsidered its earlier ruling, then dismissed the case without stating the clear provision of law upon which it is based.