SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254644. April 28, 2021.]
ROY V. MOVIDO, petitioner, vs. GLOBAL ESTATE RESORTS, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 April 2021 which reads as follows: ETHIDa
"G.R. No. 254644 (Roy V. Movido v. Global Estate Resorts, Inc.). — The Court resolves this Petition for Review on Certiorari (with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) and/or any other appropriate Protective Order) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 1 dated September 9, 2020 and Resolution 2 dated November 25, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158990. The CA dismissed Roy V. Movido's (Movido) petition for certiorari assailing the Orders dated December 18, 2017 3 and October 15, 2018 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, which denied Movido's Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. R-PSG-17-00821CV.
Movido imputes error upon the CA for dismissing his petition for certiorari and in not finding that (a) Global Estate Resorts, Inc. (GERI) is guilty of forum shopping as its complaint was barred by litis pendentia and res judicata, and (b) the act of the RTC of Pasig City of taking cognizance of GERI's complaint constitutes interference with the jurisdiction of the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan. 5
The Court finds no merit in the petition. An order denying a motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of an appeal as it is an interlocutory order that neither terminates nor fully disposes of a case. 6 Furthermore, the denial generally cannot be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari, unless it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. 7 Considering that the case before Us came from a petition for certiorari before the CA, the question that this Court must resolve is whether the CA was correct in its ruling that the lower court did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 8 The abuse of discretion must be grave "as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction." 9 A mere error in judgment on the part of the RTC would be inadequate to reverse the disposition by the CA. 10
Guided by these parameters, the Court finds nonetheless that the CA was correct in dismissing Movido's petition for certiorari. A perusal of Movido's petition for certiorari before the CA reveals that while he ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the RTC of Pasig City, the arguments he raised in support of such allegation are actually errors of judgment rather than acts constituting grave abuse of discretion. Specifically, he imputes error on the RTC when it ruled that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of GERI's complaint, that GERI's complaint is not barred by litis pendentia, and that GERI is not guilty of forum shopping. The Court has held that in such a case, the higher court must dismiss the petition because it fails to allege the presence of grave abuse of discretion which is the core requirement of a Rule 65 petition, for "[w]ithout this requirement, litigants can easily circumvent the rule that an interlocutory order cannot be appealed." 11
At any rate, Movido is not without any remedy from the denial of his Motion to Dismiss. He can file his answer, with the option to include grounds stated in the motion to dismiss, proceed to trial, and file an appeal and raise the interlocutory order as an error in the event that an adverse judgment is rendered. 12 Petitioner had in fact already filed his Answer Ad Cautelam (with Compulsory Counterclaims) 13 on January 11, 2018, pending resolution of his MR of the Order dated December 18, 2017.
Finding no merit in the present petition, the prayer for the issuance of a TRO/WPI and/or any other appropriate protective order is likewise denied.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, writ of preliminary injunction, and/or any other appropriate protective order is likewise DENIED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated 7 April 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring; rollo, pp. 64-75.
2.Id. at 77-78.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Rowena De Juan-Quinagoran of Branch 166; id. at 126-131.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Nicanor A. Manalo, Jr. of Branch 161 (to which the case was re-raffled); id. at 132-134.
5.Id. at 17-56.
6.Biñan Rural Bank v. Carlos, 759 Phil. 416, 420 (2015).
7.Id. at 421.
8. See NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Ltd. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., 677 Phil. 351, 363 (2011).
9.Biñan Rural Bank v. Carlos, supra at 421.
10. See NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Ltd. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.,supra at 363-364.
11.G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. v. Tiara Commercial Corp., 820 Phil. 235, 248 (2017).
12. See id. at 249.
13.Rollo, pp. 728-736.