THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230326. August 9, 2017.]
GEMMA BARRION, ANGELITA TAN LICUP, GLENN O. BRIONES, LOURDES L. PECATOSTE, FREDDIE BARROS, ELIZALDE GALABAY AND SHELEMEAH V. EROG-EROG, petitioners,vs. HONG C. SEE AND JOYCE HIDALGO, RTC OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE AND BUTUAN, BRANCH 4, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 9, 2017, which reads as follows: ITAaHc
"G.R. No. 230326 (Gemma Barrion, Angelita Tan Licup, Glenn O. Briones, Lourdes L. Pecatoste, Freddie Barros, Elizalde Galabay and Shelemeah V. Erog-Erog vs. Hong C. See and Joyce Hidalgo, RTC of Agusan Del Norte and Butuan, Branch 4). — The Court:
(1) GRANTS respondent Hang C. See's motion for additional ten (10) days reckoned from June 1, 2017 or until June 14, 2017 within which to file comment on the petition for review on certiorari; and
(2) NOTES:
(a) the motion to admit respondent's belated comment on the petition; and
(b) said comment.
This resolves the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition 1 filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by Gemma Barrion, Angelita Tan Licup, Glenn Briones, Lourdes Pecatoste, Freddie Barros, Elizalde Galabay and Shelemeah V. Erog Erog (petitioners) to assail the Joint Resolutions 2 dated January 18, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated January 3, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City in the cases docketed as Cad. Case No. 1 and Civil Case No. 6284.
Subject of the controversy is a portion of Lot 447 situated in Poblacion, Butuan City, 4 and which private respondent Hong C. See (See) claimed to have acquired from Apolinario Hidalgo (Hidalgo) while it was still subject of Cad. Case No. 1, an action for reconstitution of lost title over Lot 447 instituted by Hidalgo against the Heirs of Hermogena Rolloque. 5
Sometime in 2014, See sought to intervene in Cad. Case No. 1. 6 Prior to his plea to intervene, Hidalgo had obtained a favorable judgment that ordered the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title and a writ of possession in his favor. Hence, the RTC had issued on May 16, 1991, June 10, 1992 and September 18, 1992 orders for the immediate implementation of a writ of demolition that affected the petitioners, who were found to have occupied the subject land. 7 See also instituted Civil Case No. 6284, an accion publiciana with damages against the petitioners and which was later decided by the trial court alongside pending incidents in Cad. Case No. 1. 8
In the assailed Joint Resolutions 9 dated January 18, 2016, the RTC granted See's motion for intervention with prayer to enforce the alias writ of demolition in Cad. Case No. 1. Accordingly, the Sheriff assigned to implement the alias writ of demolition last issued by the court was ordered to continue with the implementation of the writ on the portion already owned by See. The fallo of the Joint Resolutions reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Intervention with prayer to enforce the Alias Writ of Demolition in Cad. Case No. 1 is granted.
The Sheriff assigned to implement the Alias Writ of Demolition last issued by the Court is ordered to continue with the implementation of the same on the other portion of Lot 447 now owned by [See] who is ordered to foot [the] whole bill of expenses incurred.
Consequently, the Motion to adopt the Alias Writ of Demolition in Cad. Case No. 1 [in] Civil Case No. 6284 is denied for having lost its relevance by the granting of [See's] prayer for the enforcement of the Alias Writ of Demolition on his portion of Lot 447.
Consequently, being moot and academic, Civil Case No. 6284 is hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 10
Undaunted, the petitioners sought a partial reconsideration on the following grounds: (1) the RTC's action was null and void because the prior ruling in Cad. Case No. 1 had become final and executory; and (2) the alias writ of demolition could not be implemented because there was already an order on June 23, 2000 that denied a motion for the issuance of alias writ of execution in Cad. Case No. 1. 11 The motion for reconsideration was still denied by the RTC via the Resolution 12 dated January 3, 2017, with dispositive portion that reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for [Partial] Reconsideration filed by defendants Gemma Barrion, et al. through Atty. Berteni Cataluña Causing, is hereby denied for lack of merit. CHTAIc
SO ORDERED. 13
Hence, this petition by which the petitioners impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the assailed resolutions and permitting the demolition.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is dismissed.
The petitioners erred in directly filing with the Court the petition for certiorari and prohibition. Jurisprudence provides that although the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals (CA) have concurrent jurisdiction over such petitions, the concurrence does not give a petitioner the unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. There is, after all, a rule on hierarchy of courts. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against the RTC should be with the CA. Direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. 14
The petitioners sought to explain their direct recourse to the Court by stating that the issues involved are "legal questions" that only the Court can address. They also alluded to the supposed influence of See, a multi-millionaire and owner of one of the big malls in Cagayan de Oro City (CDO), upon the CA in CDO. These two grounds, however, fail to justify. In the first place, the determination of grave abuse of discretion was well within the CA's power to determine. As regards the second ground, the supposed influence of See upon the CA was unsubstantiated and thus, at the very least, was but an unfair speculation.
In any case, even as the Court reviews the merits of the petition, it finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC in issuing the assailed resolutions. Jurisprudence provides that:
An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." x x x. 15
In this case, the RTC presented its good grounds to justify the assailed rulings. Citing jurisprudence on the matter, the trial court explained that See had become an indispensable party to the case, as it declared:
[A]s held in the case of Simplicio Galicia, G.R. No. 155785, April 13, 2007, citing the case of [Pinlac v. Court of Appeals], September 10, 2003, "x x x jurisprudence is replete with cases wherein the Court ruled that a motion to intervene may be entertained or allowed even if filed after judgment was rendered by the trial court, especially in cases where the intervenors are indispensable parties. The rule of intervention, like all other rules of procedure, is intended to make the powers of the Court fully and completely available for justice. It is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing thereof. Indeed in exceptional cases, the Court has allowed intervention notwithstanding the rendition of judgment by the trial court.["]16 (Emphasis in the original)
It is likewise clear that See's intervention merely affected the implementation of the writ issued by the trial court. There was no attempt to disturb the main decision that had become final and executory. As the new owner of the subject land, See merely stepped into the shoes and acquired the rights of Hidalgo, as his predecessor-in-interest. He was only enforcing a right which Hidalgo himself could have exercised.
As to the second ground decided by the RTC, the trial court clarified that there had been no prior denial of any motion for alias writ of execution, as it cited the dispositive portion of the Order dated June 23, 2000 invoked by the petitioners, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the court resolves that if petitioners-movant will not take corrective steps and enlighten the court on the matters above-noted by it within 30 days from notice hereof, the court will consider the instant motion as abandoned or not having [been] filed. 17 EATCcI
The Court likewise finds it material that the petitioners were not the respondents in Cad. Case No. 1, yet they continue to question the propriety of See's intervention in the said case.
The other matters raised in the petition, such as the manner by which the writ of demolition was implemented by the Sheriff, are not for the Court to review via the present petition, as its determination should be limited by the allegation of grave abuse of discretion committed by the public respondent in issuing the subject resolutions. Even the claim that the assailed Joint Resolutions dated January 18, 2016 was promulgated after Judge Gael Paderanga had retired from the service was not supported by any proof.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-30.
2. Issued by Judge-Designate Gael P. Paderanga; id. at 46-57.
3. Issued by Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr.; id. at 32-35.
4.Id. at 47.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 61-65.
7.Id. at 51-52.
8.Id. at 46.
9.Id. at 46-57.
10.Id. at 57.
11.Id. at 33-34.
12.Id. at 32-35.
13.Id. at 35.
14.Mendoza, et al. v. Mayor Villas, et al., 659 Phil. 409, 414 (2011), citing Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 635 Phil. 283, 300 (2010).
15.Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast, Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, et al., 716 Phil. 500, 515-516 (2013).
16.Rollo, p. 34.
17.Id.