Post

Caridad Pacheco vs. Jimmy F. Reyes

Posted
By Anonymous
6 min read
Caridad Pacheco vs. Jimmy F. Reyes

  1. Case Title and Citation

Caridad Pacheco, petitioner, vs. Jimmy F. Reyes, respondent.
G.R. No. 268216, February 26, 2024
Supreme Court - Third Division
Ponente: Justice Gaerlan

  1. Facts

  • Respondent is the lawful possessor of a lot at No. 39 Visayas Street, Group 3, Area B, Payatas, Quezon City, acquired by subrogation/transfer dated February 5, 2004.
  • Petitioner and her late husband (spouses Pacheco) entered into a Contract of Lease with respondent at a monthly rental of ₱6,000, starting October 1, 2012.
  • Spouses Pacheco stopped paying rentals beginning April 1, 2017. Respondent sent a demand letter dated August 5, 2017 and another dated February 11, 2019; an affidavit of service for the February 11, 2019 demand was executed on February 22, 2019.
  • A Certificate to File Action was issued by the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa of Barangay Payatas on July 10, 2017 after attempts at amicable settlement allegedly failed.
  • Respondent, assisted by UP-OLA, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages on April 13, 2019; summons was served on April 22, 2019.
  • Spouses Pacheco filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim on May 6, 2019, alleging ownership of the property and asserting prescription of respondent’s action.
  • The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) rendered judgment for respondent on September 21, 2020, granting the unlawful detainer claim and ordering ejectment, rental arrears, attorney’s fees, and costs.
  • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC decision in a decision dated July 9, 2021 (order dated March 2, 2022 denying reconsideration).
  • Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking relief from the RTC decision; the CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated July 26, 2022 for being the wrong remedy and for procedural defects (lack/defective verification and certification against forum shopping) and denied reconsideration on May 8, 2023.
  • Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in this Court.

  1. Issues

  2. Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in dismissing petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari?
  3. Was certiorari under Rule 65 a proper remedy instead of a petition for review under Rule 42?
  4. Was a petition under Rule 42 still available and timely when petitioner sought relief from the RTC decision?
  5. Did petitioner’s subsequent submission cure the lack of a proper verification and certification against forum shopping?

  1. Ruling

  2. No - The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in dismissing the petition; dismissal was warranted for wrong remedy and procedural defects.
  3. No - Certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy because an appeal under Rule 42 was available.
  4. No - A Rule 42 petition was available but petitioner filed untimely; the RTC decision had become final by operation of law.
  5. No - The subsequent submissions did not cure the defective verification and the uncertified forum-shopping certification; they remained inadequate.

  1. Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Proper remedy and availability of appeal:
    • The RTC acted in its appellate jurisdiction when it affirmed the MeTC decision; appeals from RTC decisions in appellate capacity must be pursued by petition for review under Rule 42 (Rodis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 215010, July 29, 2020).
    • Certiorari under Rule 65 is an original remedy limited to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and is not a substitute for an appeal when an adequate remedy exists (Go-Yu v. Yu, 851 Phil. 213).
    • Therefore, the CA correctly held that certiorari was the wrong remedy because a Rule 42 petition was available.
  • Finality and timeliness:
    • The Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) took effect April 11, 2022 and are prospective; they do not apply to cases filed earlier (Rule V of A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC).
    • Petitioner received the RTC order on April 28, 2022 and filed the CA petition on the 50th day after receipt of the RTC order denying reconsideration, exceeding the 15-day reglementary period for Rule 42 petitions; the RTC decision became final by operation of law (Heirs of Reyes v. Director of Lands, 873 Phil. 468).
    • A decision that has acquired finality by operation of law is immutable and cannot be attacked by substituting remedies or late filings (Star Special Corporate Security Management, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, 880 Phil. 822).
  • Procedural defects — verification and certification against forum shopping:
    • Verification and certification against forum shopping are mandatory; non-compliance with verification may be curable in certain circumstances, but defects in certification against forum shopping are generally not curable by subsequent submission except in special circumstances (Quitalig v. Quitalig, G.R. No. 207958, August 4, 2021).
    • The CA found that the petitioner’s later submissions lacked proper attestation and were incomplete (only the first page of a position paper was submitted), hence not substantially compliant.
    • Given absence of compelling reasons to relax the rules, strict compliance with procedural requirements was required (Brual v. Contreras; Asia United Bank v. Goodland Co., Inc.; Bolos v. Bolos).
  • Policy on procedural rules:
    • The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege to be exercised according to law, and that procedural rules serve to prevent delay and must be faithfully complied with.

  1. Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an available appeal; it is confined to correcting jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion.
  • Appeals from RTC judgments rendered in appellate capacity must be brought under Rule 42.
  • Verification and certification against forum shopping are mandatory; defective verification may be curable in limited cases, but defects in certification against forum shopping are generally not curable absent special circumstances.
  • Finality of judgments occurs by operation of law upon lapse of the reglementary period for appeal.
  • Rules of procedure must be complied with strictly; relaxation requires compelling reasons.

  1. Disposition

  • The Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is DENIED.
  • The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated July 26, 2022 and May 8, 2023 in CA-G.R. SP No. 173904 are AFFIRMED.
  • The effect is that the RTC judgment affirming the MeTC decision (ordering ejectment, payment of rentals and arrearages, attorney’s fees, and costs) remains final and effective.

  1. Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Justices Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Dimaampao, and Singh concurred.
  • No dissenting opinion was noted.

  1. Significance / Notes

  • Reinforces that the correct procedural route must be followed: where Rule 42 is available, parties must file a petition for review under Rule 42 rather than seeking certiorari under Rule 65.
  • Affirms the prospective application of the Rules on Expedited Procedures (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC); cases filed before April 11, 2022 remain governed by pre-existing rules.
  • Emphasizes strict compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping; subsequent imperfect submissions are insufficient absent compelling justification.
  • Confirms that a judgment becomes final by operation of law upon expiration of the appeal period, and final judgments are generally immutable.
Remedial Law Civil Procedure Special Proceedings Judicial Review
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.