Ateneo De Manila University v. Diestro

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 197439. March 20, 2019.]

THE ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY, petitioner, vs.LAURENCE ANTHONY DIESTRO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 20, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 197439 (The Ateneo de Manila University v. Laurence Anthony Diestro). — This resolves the petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) to assail the March 30, 2011 2 and June 22, 2011 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 118679. The CA dismissed ADMU's petition for certiorari due to failure by ADMU to file a motion for reconsideration of the March 17, 2011 Order 4 of Branch 76 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC, in its Order, granted respondent Laurence Anthony Diestro's (Diestro) motion for another Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and for reiteration and enforcement of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Diestro was enrolled at ADMU since June 2005. Sometime in the summer of 2009, he was refused readmission for having been found guilty of various school offenses as set out in its Decision dated May 11, 2009. 5 Since he had only one semester left before graduation, Diestro, on November 9, 2009, filed a complaint 6 before the RTC, seeking for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to enjoin the implementation of the ADMU's Decision and for him to be allowed to enroll for the second semester of school year (SY) 2009-2010. On December 7, 2009, Diestro amended his complaint, 7 praying, among others, that he be allowed to enroll in the first available and immediately succeeding summer and/or academic semester and, after trial, be allowed to graduate upon his completion of all the requirements for graduation. This complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-09-65939 and raffled to Branch 76 of the RTC.

On January 6, 2010, ADMU filed its answer 8 and prayed for the dismissal of Diestro's complaint. According to ADMU, Diestro's application for TRO/WPI cannot be granted as it would render moot the main issue in the case, that is, whether ADMU was correct in refusing Diestro readmission after the latter was found guilty of various offenses.

After hearing, the RTC, on March 24, 2010, issued an Order 9 directing the issuance of a WPI commanding ADMU to admit and enroll Diestro for the second semester of SY 2009-2010, or in the immediately available succeeding summer and/or academic semester, until further orders from the court.

ADMU moved for a reconsideration 10 of the RTC Order. Pending resolution of its motion, ADMU sent written notice 11 to Diestro that it will allow him to enroll on the condition that the status of his enrollment and eligibility for graduation will be subject to the outcome of Civil Case No. Q-09-65939. Diestro agreed to ADMU's conditions and affixed his signature on the conforme portion of the written notice.

Meanwhile, the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-09-65939 were suspended and the case referred to mediation. 12 On October 22, 2010, Diestro filed an urgent motion 13 seeking for the amendment of the WPI to the effect that he will be allowed to enroll in the second semester of SY 2010-2011 and each semester thereafter, until he finishes his course or until further orders from the court. Subsequently, the RTC issued an Order 14 on October 27, 2010 stating that there was nothing to expound; the WPI was explicit as to its terms and remains effective pending the resolution or decision of the main case.

On January 12, 2011, the RTC issued an Order 15 lifting the suspension of the proceedings due to failure of mediation. In the same Order, the court also denied ADMU's motion for reconsideration and proceeded to set the case for pre-trial conference on February 28, 2011.

During the pre-trial conference, Presiding Judge Alexander Balut (Judge Balut) conducted JDR, but the parties failed to arrive at a settlement. Subsequently, on February 28, 2011 and in response to Judge Balut's query, ADMU manifested that it would like to have the case referred back to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle to another branch. 16

Diestro filed a motion to set case for another JDR dated March 7, 2011 and an urgent motion to reiterate and enforce the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated March 9, 2011. ADMU opposed these motions, asserting that it was no longer within Judge Balut's power to resolve the motions as the case was already for re-raffle after the termination of the JDR. 17 The RTC, in its Order 18 dated March 17, 2011, granted Diestro's motions over ADMU's opposition.

Aggrieved, on March 24, 2011, ADMU elevated the March 17, 2011 Order of the RTC to the CA through a petition for certiorari19 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

On March 30, 2011, the CA issued a Resolution 20 dismissing ADMU's petition for being defective on the ground that ADMU did not seek reconsideration of the March 17, 2011 Order of the RTC.

ADMU moved for reconsideration 21 of the March 30, 2011 Resolution, but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution 22 dated June 22, 2011. According to the CA, the petition, as well as ADMU's motion for reconsideration and Diestro's comment/opposition, raised factual issues regarding the ADMU's act of withholding Diestro's clearance for graduation. These matters should have been ventilated first before the trial court in a motion for reconsideration, not in a petition for certiorari where the jurisdiction of the court is restricted to issues of grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. 23

ADMU thus elevated the Resolutions of the CA to this Court by way of this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

In its petition, ADMU asserts that the CA erred when: (1) it dismissed the ADMU's petition for certiorari on the ground of failure to file a motion for reconsideration; and (2) it held that issues regarding the ADMU's withholding of Diestro's clearances should have been ventilated before the trial court via a motion for reconsideration. 24

Diestro, in his comment 25 to the petition, maintains that, due to the extant questions of fact, it was necessary to file a motion seeking reconsideration of the RTC Order prior to elevating the matter to the CA by way of a special civil action for certiorari. 26 He also maintains that (1) Judge Balut had jurisdiction to issue the March 17, 2011 Order as the JDR proceedings were not yet terminated at the time; 27 and (2) the inclusion of his graduation in the questioned Order was proper and made in furtherance of the original WPI in the exercise of the RTC's jurisdiction and discretion. 28

The petition is impressed with merit.

In dismissing the petition for certiorari outright, the CA ruled that the petition was defective due to the ADMU's failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's March 17, 2011 Order. 29 Thus, the question to be resolved by the Court in this case is whether ADMU was justified in elevating the case to the CA without filing the requisite motion for reconsideration before the RTC.

While it is well-established that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the filing of a special civil action for certiorari, this rule admits of certain exceptions, 30 to wit:

(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;

(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;

(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;

(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;

(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;

(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;

(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;

(h) where the proceedings was [sic]ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and

(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. 31 (Emphasis supplied.)

According to the CA, a motion for reconsideration should have been filed by ADMU to enable the trial court to correct its own mistakes without intervention of the higher court. 32 ADMU, on the other hand, counters that it was justified in filing the petition with the CA without need of first filing a motion for reconsideration because the March 17, 2011 Order is a patent nullity. Judge Balut had already lost his authority to preside over the case after the termination of the JDR. 33 Moreover, the objective of requiring a motion for reconsideration to allow the judge to correct himself is unavailing in a situation where the judge had already lost his authority to preside over the case. 34

We agree with ADMU and find that this case falls under the first recognized exception to the rule that a motion for reconsideration should first be filed before elevating the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari. As will be discussed, Judge Balut already lost jurisdiction after the termination of the JDR; thus, he no longer had authority to act on Diestro's motions.

A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA or the Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) dated January 11, 2011 (Guidelines) mandates the diversion of pending cases both to CAM and JDR to put an end to pending litigation through a compromise agreement of the parties by empowering them to resolve their own disputes, and thereby help solve the ever-pressing problem of court docket congestion.

Under the Guidelines, judicial proceedings shall be divided into two stages: (1) from the filing of a complaint to the conduct of CAM and JDR during the pre-trial stage, and (2) pre-trial proper to trial and judgment. The judge to whom the case has been originally raffled, who shall be called the JDR Judge, shall preside over the first stage. The judge, who shall be called the trial judge, shall preside over the second stage. 35

At the initial stage of the pre-trial conference, the JDR judge briefs the parties and counsels of the CAM and JDR processes. Thereafter, he issues an Order of Referral of the case to the CAM and directs the parties and their counsels to proceed to the Philippine Mediation Center Unit (PMCU), bringing with them a copy of the Order of Referral, which includes the pre-setting of the case for JDR not earlier than 45 days from the time the parties first personally appear at the PMCU so that JDR will be conducted immediately if the parties do not settle at the CAM. 36

If the parties do not settle their dispute at the CAM, the parties and their counsels shall appear at the preset date before the JDR judge, who will then conduct the JDR process as mediator, neutral evaluator, and/or conciliator to actively assist and facilitate negotiations among the parties for them to settle their dispute. 37

If this stage of diversion likewise fails, the JDR judge must turn over the case to another judge who will try the unsettled case. The trial judge shall be the one to continue with the pre-trial proper, and thereafter proceed to try and decide the case. 38 The Guidelines clearly state that "[t]he JDR judge shall not preside over the trial of the case when the parties did not settle their dispute at JDR." 39 The reason for this is because the JDR judge may have elicited confidential information that may create bias and partiality that could affect the judgment. 40

Thus, under the Guidelines, if no settlement is reached by the parties, or only a partial settlement is reached, or if no joint written motion is submitted by the parties for the JDR judge to proceed to conduct the trial of the case on the merits, the JDR judge shall turn over the case to the trial judge, who shall be assigned via raffle in multiple sala courts, or to the originating court in single sala courts, as the case may be. The trial judge shall hereafter conduct pre-trial proper, as mandated by Rules 18 and 118 of the Rules of Court, expeditiously proceed to trial, and thereafter render judgment in accordance with the established facts, evidence, and the applicable laws. 41

In this case, the parties, upon the failure of the JDR on February 28, 2011, had the choice to either refer the case back to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle, or to have the JDR judge proceed with the case through the filing of a joint motion. ADMU, in its manifestation 42 dated February 28, 2011, chose to have the case referred back to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle to another branch of the RTC of Quezon City. Thus, upon the exercise of such option by one party, the JDR judge already lost jurisdiction to resolve any further incidents in the case. Based on the Guidelines, at this point, all that is left for the JDR judge to do is to turn over the case to the trial judge, who would then be the one to try the case on the merits. There is nothing in the Guidelines that justifies Judge Balut's issuance of the questioned March 17, 2011 Order.

Moreover, we cannot give credence to Diestro's position that the alleged issue on the authority of Imelda Nebungco (Nebungco) to represent ADMU in the JDR process justified Judge Balut's issuance of the questioned Order. 43

According to Diestro, Judge Balut has not yet lost jurisdiction over the injunction case at the time of the issuance of the questioned Order due to his pending motion to set the case for another JDR. 44 We do not agree. The ADMU's counsel who appeared in the February 28, 2011 JDR setting was duly armed with a special power of attorney to represent and settle in its behalf. Judge Balut even allowed the ADMU's counsel to make his manifestation regarding the absence of any settlement. Even the questioned Order is silent on the alleged absence of authority of the ADMU's counsel. If Judge Balut believed that the special power of attorney issued in favor of the ADMU's counsel was insufficient to cover the JDR, and there was need for another representative in the person of Nebungco, then he would have given the appropriate instructions or imposed corresponding sanctions.

Neither can Judge Balut's action for setting the case for another JDR session be justified by the simple invocation of the "spirit" of the JDR Rules. The role of the JDR judge, as mediator and conciliator, is to facilitate the settlement discussions between the parties and try to reconcile their differences. As a neutral evaluator, he assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's case and makes a non-binding and impartial evaluation of the chances of each party's success in the case, persuading the parties to a fair and mutually acceptable settlement of their dispute. 45 For the JDR to push through, there must be a real possibility of settlement between both parties and a mutual desire to reach a compromise. Thus, the JDR judge cannot arbitrarily countenance a party's request for another JDR, when the other party has already foreclosed the possibility of settlement by manifesting that there was a failure to arrive in any acceptable settlement for its part. In essence, the JDR judge cannot force a possibility of settlement in order to cling to its jurisdiction, when one of the parties has already manifested otherwise.

Having lost his jurisdiction to proceed with the case, Judge Balut likewise lost his jurisdiction to resolve the motions filed after the JDR process was terminated.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated March 30, 2011 and June 22, 2011 of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 118679 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Regional Trial Court where the main case for injunction, Civil Case No. Q-09-65939, is currently pending.

SO ORDERED."Bersamin, C.J., on official business; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2645 dated March 15, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 20-43.

2.Id. at 135-136; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio.

3.Id. at 138-139.

4. CA rollo, pp. 114-115-A.

5.Rollo, p. 70.

6. CA rollo, pp. 32-37.

7.Id. at 38-45.

8.Id. at 46-56.

9.Id. at 64-65.

10.Id. at 68-81.

11.Id. at 82.

12.Id. at 85.

13.Id. at 86-88.

14.Id. at 89.

15.Id. at 93-94.

16.Id. at 95.

17.Id. at 108.

18.Supra note 4.

19. CA rollo, pp. 3-27.

20.Supra note 2.

21. CA rollo, pp. 124-134.

22.Supra note 3.

23.Id.

24.Rollo, p. 31.

25.Id. at 192-204.

26.Id. at 194-195.

27.Id. at 196-199.

28.Id. at 199-200.

29.Id. at 7-8.

30.Novateknika Land Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 194104, March 13, 2013, 693 SCRA 423, 432; Abdulrahman v. Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, G.R. No. 175977, August 19, 2013, 704 SCRA 124, 134, citing Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135703, April 15, 2009, 585 SCRA 18, 29.

31.Id.

32.Rollo, pp. 7-8.

33.Id. at 31-33.

34.Id. at 33-34.

35. Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of CAM and JDR, Part Three, Item II, first paragraph.

36. Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of CAM and JDR, Part Three, Item II, second paragraph.

37. Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of CAM and JDR, Part Three, Item II, fourth paragraph.

38. Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of CAM and JDR, Part One, Item 1.2, second paragraph.

39. Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of CAM and JDR, Part Three, Item II, fifth paragraph. Emphasis supplied.

40. Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of CAM and JDR, footnote 15.

41. Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of CAM and JDR, Part Three, Items XII and XIII.

42. CA rollo, p. 95.

43. Rollo, pp. 196-197.

44. Id. at 196-199.

45. Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of CAM and JDR, Part Three, Item II, fourth paragraph.