Yap v. Heirs of Pantalan (Moro)

 Doctrine: The rule that certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence. While it is true that we have applied a liberal application of the rules of procedure in a number of cases, we have always stressed that this can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. "To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice.”

Facts: This case is rooted from claims over a parcel of land originally owned by Pantalan (Moro). In June 1990, said parcel of land was adjudged with finality to be owned by respondents the Licuanans in a case for Reconveyance, Nullity of Title, Damages, Attorney's Fees, Etc., filed by the Licuanans against the heirs of Pantalan (Moro). Yap, however, also claims ownership thereof, having allegedly acquired the same by sale from respondent Heirs of Pantalan (Moro), through a "private deed of sale" prepared and notarized by Atty. Nano. Hence, Yap filed this Complaint for Specific Performance, Reconveyance, Nullity of Titles, Damages, Attorney's Fees, Receivership, with Preliminary Injunction and Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order before the RTC of Lupon, Davao Oriental against the Heirs of Pantalan (Moro), the Licuanans, and Atty. Nano.

The Licuanans filed motions for extension of time to file a responsive pleading. However, the Licuanans filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. RTC granted Licuanan’s Motion to dismiss.

Aggrieved, Yap filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to the CA. CA dismissed the petition as well as the motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not certiorari may be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.

Held: No. The assailed RTC Orders before the CA were clearly final orders issued by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, which may be reviewed by an ordinary appeal. 

Nothing is more settled than the rule that certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence. While it is true that we have applied a liberal application of the rules of procedure in a number of cases, we have always stressed that this can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. "To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantial justice.” It should be emphasized that in this case, Yap did not offer any reasonable cause to justify its failure to avail of the proper remedy before the CA except for his defensive argument of laying the blame to his counsel's mistake or negligence and his invocation of this Court's exercise of liberality in order to accord him his day in court. Indeed, Yap has not been forthright about his procedural blunder. Time and again, we have ruled that utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.