THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207445. June 16, 2014.]
PERPETUA S. AGUSTIN AND MARCELINA S. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, E.M. LAENO AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207445 (Perpetua S. Agustin and Marcelina S. Agustin v. Hon. Court of Appeals, E.M. Laeno and Associates, Inc., et al.). — The Court resolves to NOTE petitioners' Manifestation and Motion dated May 9, 2014 stating that the writ of execution which was prematurely issued is void since the decision of the Court of Appeals is not yet final and executory and should be recalled/quashed and praying that a temporary restraining order be issued to restrain or enjoin the court of origin from further enforcing or implementing the improvidently issued Writ of Execution and that their petition for certiorari be given due course.
This petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the July 13, 2012 Decision 2 and the March 26, 2013 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 88430, affirming the April 6, 2005 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 194, Parañaque City (RTC), in a collection case for sum of money and damages.
The Facts:
In the Complaint for Unpaid Balance of the Selling Price on Real Estate Property 4 filed before the RTC by respondent E.M. Laeno & Associates, Inc. (E.M. Laeno) against Perpetua Agustin (Perpetua) and her mother, Marcelina Agustin (Marcelina), it was alleged that respondent was the registered owner of a property located at 35 T. Teodoro Street, BF Homes, Parañaque City, with an area of 292 square meters and covered by TCT No. 104862 of the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City (the property); that per Agreement to Sell, 5 E.M. Laeno agreed to sell the property to Perpetua for and in consideration of P6,500,000.00; that the parties stipulated, among others, that the downpayment of P1,000,000.00 shall be paid upon the execution of the agreement and the balance of P5,500,000.00 shall be payable upon the delivery of the title in the name of Perpetua's mother, Marcelina; that Perpetua paid an additional downpayment of P500,000.00 and a partial payment of P3,500,000.00, thus, leaving a balance of P1,500,000.00 which Perpetua paid as evidenced by Citibank Check No. 000787, dated October 23, 2002 (the subject check), with Lorna Laeno (Lorna) as payee; that pursuant to the Agreement to Sell, E.M. Laeno delivered TCT No. 152609 6 to Perpetua; that the subject check was, however, dishonored when presented for payment; and that consequently, Atty. Domingo Laeno (Atty. Laeno), on behalf of E.M. Laeno, demanded the payment of the amount of P1,500,000.00 in a letter, 7 dated December 26, 2002.
For their part, Perpetua and Marcelina countered that E.M. Laeno had no cause of action against them because they already fully paid the purchase price of the property. As to the alleged outstanding balance, they issued the checks not for the payment of the purchase price but rather as a security for the investment placed by E.M. Laeno or its alter ego, Atty. Laeno.
During the trial, respondent was allowed to present evidence ex-parte in view of the absence of the petitioners and their counsel. According to the evidence of E.M. Laeno, Perpetua made the following payments:
a) P1,000,000.00 downpayment as reflected in the Agreement to Sell;
b) P500,000.00 additional downpayment; and
c) P2,000,000.00 and P3,000,000.00 in Citibank check with numbers 746 and 747, respectively.
After issuing the check, however, Perpetua realized that she would need funds for her project in Tuguegarao City and that her only source was partially covered by the P3,000,000.00 check she had issued. Consequently, Lorna Laeno issued BPI Check No. 0177491, dated July 21, 2002, in the amount of P1,500,000.00 in favor of Perpetua. The BPI check was encashed by Perpetua on July 24, 2002. In payment of the amount of P1,500,000.00, represented by the BPI check, Perpetua issued the subject Citibank check which was dishonored upon presentment.
In its November 19, 2004 Decision, 8 the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure of E.M. Laeno to establish its claim with the quantum of evidence required in civil cases. According to the RTC, the evidence presented by E.M. Laeno actually favored Perpetua and Marcelina. The evidence showed that the latter had fully paid the purchase price of the property. In other words, the subject check could not have been issued as payment for the balance of the purchase price, as there was no concrete evidence showing that the amount of the check would be deducted from the previous payments made. CSAcTa
On reconsideration, 9 however, the RTC reversed its previous ruling and decreed that E.M. Laeno was indeed an unpaid seller taking into account the proximity of the dates of issuance of the P1.5 million and P3 million checks. The RTC likewise awarded moral and exemplary damages to E.M. Laeno. The dispositive portion of the RTC Resolution, 10 dated April 6, 2005, reads:
And therefore, finding that the pieces of evidence submitted by plaintiff which had not been refuted, contradicted or controverted, sufficient to prove by preponderant evidence the claim of the plaintiff, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Perpetua Agustin as follows:
1. to pay the plaintiff the amount of P1,500,000.00 representing the balance of the contract price over the property with interest of 12% per annum reckoned from the date of demand, December 26, 2000 until full payment as actual damages.
2. to pay the plaintiff P50,000.00 by way of moral damages.
3. to pay the plaintiff the amount of P50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.
4. to pay the plaintiff the amount P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
SO ORDERED. 11
On appeal to the CA, Perpetua and Marcelina argued that the RTC erred in granting the complaint of E.M. Laeno for the unpaid balance of the purchase price for the property. They insisted that the amount represented in the subject check was not a part of the purchase price but was rather intended for a separate transaction.
On July 13, 2012, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the findings of the RTC. 12 The CA stated that E.M. Laeno was able to show through preponderant evidence that when Perpetua issued Citibank Check No. 747 for P3,000,000.00, the amount originally allocated was the last and full payment for the contract price. She would later convince E.M. Laeno to allow her to retain P1,500,000.00 as she would need it for another transaction. 13 E.M. Laeno, through Lorna, issued another BPI check 14 to accommodate Perpetua's request, and Perpetua, in turn, issued another Citibank check for P1,500,000.00 and three more checks as monthly interest, but these checks were all dishonored upon presentment of payment. 15
Perpetua and Marcelina moved for a reconsideration, 16 but the motion was denied by the CA in its March 26, 2013 Resolution. 17
Hence, this petition.
In support of their position, petitioners Perpetua and Marcelina submit the following
ISSUES
I
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible errors and gravely abused its discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it AFFIRMED the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court which granted the complaint for vendor'slien or in the guise of a complaint for a sum of money and damages, notwithstanding strong evidence showing that:
a] MARCELINA was the absolute and beneficial owner of the subject property, and the P1.5 Million refers to another transaction of loan agreement;
b] The loan of P1.5 Million, which is totally unrelated to the purchase price of P6.5 Million, refers to another transaction, of which the E.M. Laeno & Associates, Inc. and/or MARCELINA are NOT parties thereto.
II
Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed reversible errors and gravely abused its discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when:
a] Its findings of fact are contrary to the admissions of the parties and contradicted as well by the evidence on record;
b] It ruled to deny the appeal, on technical ground, that the factual findings of the lower court are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal; TDcEaH
c] It ruled that petitioners were not deprived of due process since Atty. Orallo was their counsel of record who represented them before the Trial Court (RTC) and in the Court of Appeals;
d] It ruled that issues not raised by petitioners in the lower court could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
III
Whether or not the Decision of the Court of Appeals, Special Fifteenth Division, on ejectment case that was earlier promulgated on September 13, 2006, involving the same parties, same issues of fact and law, and which became final and executory on April 19, 2007 as shown by the Entry of Judgment of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 174545 should be properly taken into consideration in deciding this case. 18
Petitioners Perpetua and Marcelina argue that the CA gravely abused its discretion when it failed to appreciate that the unpaid P1.5 million was not part of the unpaid balance of the purchase price. Atty. Laeno just made it to appear as such so that he could claim or enforce his alleged vendor's lien. There was a different loan transaction between Lorna and Perpetua, to which E.M. Laeno was not privy.
The petitioners also disclosed that after the denial of their motion for reconsideration with the RTC, the CA rendered a decision in another case, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 89796 (which stemmed from a complaint for ejectment filed by the petitioners in this case), ordering Atty. Laeno and all persons claiming rights under him, to vacate and peacefully surrender the possession of the subject property to Marcelina. The Court denied Atty. Laeno's petition assailing the said CA decision, which became final and executory. On July 6, 2007, Atty. Laeno was finally evicted from the premises.
The petitioners likewise contend that the CA abused its discretion when it failed to consider that the evidence on record showed that Marcelina, as the title-holder, was the absolute and beneficial owner of the property. She was not merely a trustee of her daughter, Perpetua. Atty. Laeno misled the CA into believing that Perpetua had not paid the full purchase price of the property. In fact, Atty. Laeno leased the subject property from Marcelina pursuant to a rental agreement, which was not even considered by the CA.
The petition is bereft of merit.
Certiorari, as a legal remedy, is a limited form of review. 19 It is confined to resolving errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment. 20
The petitioners' reliance on Rule 65 to assail the CA decision and its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration is incorrect. When the CA issued its disputed decision and subsequent resolution, it did so in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, therefore, the proper legal remedy to challenge the said CA disposition was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure.
It should be emphasized that the special civil action of certiorari, by its very nature, is proper only when appeal is not available to the aggrieved party, the remedies of appeal and certiorari being mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. 21 It cannot substitute for a lost appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. 22
It is true that pursuant to the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, 23 the Court has, in some cases, 24 treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly (1) if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; 25 (2) when errors of judgment are averred; 26 and (3) when there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. 27
Unfortunately, this liberal application cannot be considered in the case at bench. Here, the petition for certiorari was filed sixty (60) days from the receipt of the denial of the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Thus, the CA decision became final and executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt of the denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration for failure to avail of the appropriate remedy.
It is elementary that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is "immutable and unalterable, and can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or the highest court of the land." 28 Hence, the CA decision, even if allegedly erroneous, can no longer be changed.
At any rate, even assuming that the petition can be properly considered under Rule 65, it is still deserving a denial. The CA disposition on the merits was properly explained. It is clear from the credible evidence that the petitioners have not yet paid the full purchase price of the subject property. DHcESI
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. (Villarama, Jr., J.,designated Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division, per Special Order No. 1691, dated May 22, 2014).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-54.
2. Id. at 56-65A. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon and Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, concurring.
3. Id. at 100-102.
4. Id. at 137-142.
5. Id. at 115.
6. Id. at 121-123.
7. Id. at 133-134.
8. Id. at 207-210.
9. Id. at 211-230.
10. Id. at 242-244.
11. Id. at 244.
12. Id. at 56-65A.
13. Id. at 60-61.
14. No. 0177491.
15. Rollo, p. 61.
16. Id. at 66-82.
17. Id. at 100-102.
18. Id. at 21-22.
19. Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) v. See, G.R. No. 170292, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 478, 488.
20. Filipino Telephone Corporation v. Radiomarine Network, Inc., G.R. No. 152092, August 4, 2010, 626 SCRA 702, 732.
21. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 185668, December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 294, 304; and Catindig v. Vda. De Meneses, G.R. Nos. 165851 and 168875, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 350, 363.
22. Teh v. Tan, G.R. No. 181956, November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 593, 604.
23. Oaminal v. Sps. Castillo, 459 Phil. 542, 556 (2003).
24. Id.
25. Republic v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92, 98 (2000); Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 232, 256 (1997).
26. Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1066, 1075 (1997).
27. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals, 389 Phil. 644 (2000); Bank of America, NT & SA v. Gerochi, Jr., G.R. No. 73210, 10 February 1994, 230 SCRA 9, 15 citing Alto Sales Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court; 274 Phil. 914 (1991); Filcon Manufacturing Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 78576, 31 July 1991, 199 SCRA 814; Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75420, 15 November 1991, 203 SCRA 583.
28. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay, G.R. No. 188376, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 614, 643. SeeGallardo-Corro v. Gallardo, 403 Phil. 498, 511 (2001).