G.R. No.

163103               February 6, 2009 Petitioner Vios was represented at the MTC proceedings by his counsel of record,
Atty. Oscar D. Sollano (Atty. Sollano), while the petitioners Spouses Antonio were
CHARLIE VIOS and SPS. ROGELIO and TERESITA ANTONIO, and as nominal
represented by Atty. Manuel C. Genova (Atty. Genova).
party, Hon. Emilio L. Leachon, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 224, Quezon
City, Petitioners, After appropriate proceedings, the MTC rendered on July 12, 1996 a decision (MTC
vs. decision) in Pantangco's favor, ordering the petitioners to: (1) immediately vacate the
MANUEL PANTANGCO, JR. Respondent. premises; (2) remove all structures and shanties constructed thereon; and (3) pay
reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the property from February 1,
DECISION
1994, until they actually vacate the property. Notices and copies of the MTC decision
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari1 of the Decision of October 10, 2003 of were transmitted on even date to the petitioners through their counsels of record. Atty.
the Court of Appeals (CA)2 in Manuel Pantangco, Jr. v. Hon. Emilio L. Leachon, Genova received a copy of the decision on July 18, 1996, while Atty. Sollano
Presiding Judge of Branch 224, RTC, Quezon City, Charlie Vios and Sps. Rogelio and received a copy on July 23, 1996.
Teresita Antonio, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 47031, and the Resolution dated April 2,
On August 5, 1996, the Mauricio Law Office, through Atty. Melanio Mauricio, Jr.,
2004 that denied the motion for reconsideration of the appealed Decision.
filed a Notice of Appearance with Urgent Motion stating that petitioner Vios received
ANTECEDENTS an incomplete copy of the decision from his former counsel, Atty. Sollano, and is,
therefore, requesting the MTC to furnish petitioner Vios with a complete copy of the
The Ejectment Case at the Metropolitan Trial Court MTC decision.
Respondent Manuel Pantangco, Jr. (Pantangco) filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court Pantangco, on the other hand, filed on August 12, 1996 a Motion for the Issuance of a
(MTC), Branch 32, Quezon City a complaint for ejectment and damages against Writ of Execution, arguing that the decision is already final and executory as no
petitioners Charlie Vios (petitioner Vios) and the Spouses Rogelio and Teresita Antonio notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period by any of the petitioners.
(Spouses Antonio) (collectively, the petitioners), docketed as Civil Case No. 37-8529. The MTC granted the motion on August 30, 1996 and the corresponding writ was
Pantangco alleged in his complaint that: (1) he is a co-owner – by purchase from the issued forthwith.
former owner – of a residential land located on Sampaguita St., Barangay Pasong Tamo,
Quezon City registered under TCT No. 76956; (2) prior to his purchase of the property, On September 9, 1996, petitioner Vios moved to quash the writ asserting that it was
he inquired from the petitioners whether they were interested in buying the property; null and void because the MTC decision had not become final and executory as he
when the petitioners responded that they were not, he told them that he would give them had not been notified of the decision; Atty. Sollano, to whom a copy of the MTC
one (1) week from his purchase of the property to vacate the premises; he claimed that the decision was sent, had allegedly withdrawn as his counsel sometime in November
petitioners agreed; (3) after the consummation of the sale to him, the petitioners refused 1995.1avvphi1.zw+
to vacate notwithstanding the agreement; and (4) he filed the complaint when no
The Sheriff issued on September 11, 1996 a Notice to Vacate and Demolish the
settlement was reached before the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo.
Houses. Petitioner Vios thereupon moved to quash the writ of execution/demolition
The petitioners specifically denied in their Answer the material allegations of the which Pantangco opposed.
complaint and pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that: (1) the disputed property
The MTC denied the motion to quash the writs of execution and demolition in its
belongs to the government since it forms part of unclassified public forest; (2) the real
Order dated September 23, 1996; the Sheriff thus implemented the writ of execution
previous owner of the property was Alfredo Aquino, from whom they acquired their
by turning over possession of the disputed property to Pantangco.
rights through a document entitled "Waiver"; (3) Pantangco's title is fake as it originated
from Original Certificate of Title No. 614 which was nullified in a decision in Civil Case The Certiorari Case at the RTC
No. 36752 rendered by Judge Reynaldo V. Roura of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
On November 13, 1996, petitioner Vios filed with the RTC, Branch 224, Quezon City
Branch 83, Quezon City; and (4) assuming Pantangco's title to be valid, the property it
a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary
covers is different from the premises they (the petitioners) occupy. They asked for the
Mandatory Injunction, assailing both the MTC decision and the writ of execution.
dismissal of the complaint and the payment of damages by way of a counterclaim.
Petitioner Vios assailed the MTC decision for being contrary to the evidence on
record; he attacked the propriety of the writ of execution, on the other hand, on the granted the motion in its Order dated February 10, 1998. The writ was not
ground that the MTC decision is not yet final because Atty. Sollano, to whom a copy of immediately implemented, leading to the issuance of an alias writ of execution which
the decision was sent, had previously withdrawn as petitioner Vios' counsel. Pantangco the Sheriff this time implemented by turning possession of the disputed property over
initially filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition; via a Manifestation, he asked that the to petitioner Vios.
motion to dismiss be treated as his Answer to the petition.
At the Court of Appeals
On August 4, 1997, the RTC rendered a decision (RTC decision) in petitioner Vios' favor.
On March 10, 1998, Pantangco filed with the CA a Petition for Declaration of Nullity
It annulled the MTC decision for being contrary to the evidence; it annulled as well the
of the RTC Decision. He essentially asserted in his petition that the RTC decision is
related writ of execution on the reasoning that the decision it was implementing was not
void, given that the MTC decision cannot be assailed on certiorari; the proper remedy
yet final and executory. In
is an ordinary appeal from the MTC decision. He further argued that no remedy is
annulling the writ, the RTC said: available from the final and executory MTC decision as the remedy of appeal was
lost when the period to appeal expired fifteen (15) days from receipt of petitioner's
Since there was lack of notice to the petitioners (referring to the petitioners here), the
counsel of record of a copy of the MTC decision; certiorari is not a substitute for the
period for appeal has not expired and the decision has not become final and executory
remedy of appeal already lost. The RTC therefore, according to Pantangco, had no
which made the writ of execution subsequently issued as null and void.3
jurisdiction to hear and decide the certiorari petition and the decision it rendered was
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads: null and void. Pantangco additionally argued that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction
when it applied Article 448 of the Civil Code without hearing the parties on the issue
Accordingly, therefore, the Court has to render judgment for the petitioners [referring to of possession in good faith. He argued, too, that a petition for certiorari properly
petitioners Vios and the Spouses Antonio] as against the public and private respondent covers only grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
[referring to private respondent Pantangco, Jr.] and hereby sets aside the decision of the nothing more and nothing less.
MTC, Branch 37, Quezon City dated July 12, 1996 and the writ of execution dated
August 30, 1996. The CA rendered its assailed decision on October 10, 2003. The pertinent portion of
which reads:
The Court likewise orders that the petitioners be restored to their possession of the
subject premises and that all fixtures removed from the subject premises as a result of Now to the issue of whether respondent Vios had been notified of the MTC Decision,
dispossession be restored to petitioners. through his former counsel of record, Atty. Oscar D. Sollano. This Court
painstakingly examined the voluminous records of the case, particularly the MTC
The private respondent is hereby directed and ordered to exercise his options under Record, which, by mandate of this Court, was elevated for our consideration, and
Article 448 of the New Civil Code, that is, either to appropriate the houses of found the same barren of any notice, filed by Atty. Oscar D. Sollano either before or
petitioners after payment of the proper indemnity or to require the petitioners to after the promulgation of the MTC Decision, signifying his withdrawal as counsel for
pay the value of the land, except when the value of the land is greater than the value respondent Vios. Neither is there in the record any notice coming from respondent
of the building in which case to require each petitioners to pay rent which should be Vios himself informing the court of the withdrawal of Atty. Oscar D. Sollano as his
P3,5000.00 per month for the use and occupancy of the land in question effective on counsel of record. Consequently, the MTC cannot be faulted for furnishing a copy of
turn-over of the subject premises to petitioners. its Decision to respondent Vios, through Atty. Oscar D. Sollano.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Having been validly notified of the MTC Decision through his counsel of record,
On August 18, 1997, petitioner Vios moved for the immediate execution of the RTC respondent Vios had fifteen (15) days within which to appeal the aforesaid Decision.
decision. Pantangco, on the other hand, moved to reconsider the decision. The RTC More specifically, he had until 07 August 1997, reckoned from 23 June 1997 when
denied petitioner Vios' motion for execution in light of Pantangco’s timely motion for Atty. Oscar D. Sollano received a copy of the MTC Decision in his behalf, within
reconsideration. which to interpose an appeal. Since the MTC Decision furnished to him by Atty.
Oscar D. Sollano was allegedly incomplete, private respondent Charlie Vios filed an
On December 2, 1997, the RTC denied Pantangco's motion for reconsideration. Thus, Urgent Motion to be furnished a complete copy of the aforesaid Decision on 05
petitioner Vios filed a Second Motion for Immediate Execution. This time, the RTC August 1997 [sic, should be 1996], through the Mauricio Law Office that likewise
entered its appearance his new counsel of record. The Court, however, did not act on the THE PETITION
motion. On the theory that its decision had long become final and executory, it instead
The petitioners’ lone cited error states:
granted petitioner's Motion for Execution and, forthwith, issued the writ of execution
prayed for.1avvphi1 The Honorable Court of Appeals committed an error in entertaining the petition
to declare the nullity of the decision of the RTC even if the available remedy was
To our mind, the MTC had been rather precipitate in issuing the writ of execution to
an ordinary appeal and therefore the RTC decision which set aside the MTC
enforce its Decision even before it could act on private respondent Charlie Vios'
decision and restoring the petitioners to their possession of the subject premises
motion to be furnished a copy of the Court's decision filed two (2) days before it
has attained the stage of finality.
became final and executory. It is on this basis that we are unable to accord the
mantle of finality to the MTC Decision. To do so would deprive respondent Vios' of This assigned error actually consists of two (2) component arguments, namely:
his right to due process, particularly his right to be notified fully of the MTC
Decision against him and to elevate the same on appeal to a higher court. Since, the 1. The petition for certiorari that petitioner Vios filed with the RTC was an
MTC Decision has not attained finality, the writ of execution issued pursuant original action and the proper remedy to question the RTC’s decision is an
thereto, is consequently, invalid and improper. ordinary appeal to the CA; the CA thus erred in entertaining Pantangco's
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the RTC Decision.
xxxx
2. In this light, the petitioners additionally argued that the RTC decision
In the instant case, it cannot be gainsaid that the RTC went beyond the ambit of its which was not appealed became final; and, right or wrong; the RTC’s ruling
jurisdiction when it nullified the MTC Decision in an original action for certiorari became the law of the case that may no longer be disturbed.
and mandamus. While it was correct in its ruling that grave abuse of discretion attended
the issuance of the writ of execution, it went too far when it ruled on the insufficiency of THE COURT'S RULING
the evidence adduced by petitioner to establish his claim of rightful possession over the We find the petition partially meritorious.
subject property. Not only that. The RTC made a determination as well on the rights
of the parties to the improvements built on the subject property under the pertinent What is the proper remedy from
provisions of the New Civil Code, which it is not permitted to do in an original the decision of the RTC in a
action for certiorari and mandamus. Not even the assailed MTC Decision, which petition for certiorari?
contains no disposition regarding the parties' rights to the improvements but limited
A petition for certiorari – the remedy that petitioner Vios availed of to question the
itself to a resolution of who between petitioner and private respondents have a better
MTC decision before the RTC – is an original action whose resulting decision is a
right of possession over the subject property, warrants such a determination. It
final order that completely disposes of the petition. The proper remedy from the RTC
follows, therefore, that the RTC Decision, except in so far as it nullified the writ of
decision on the petition for certiorari that petitioner Vios filed with that court is an
execution issued by the MTC in the ejectment proceedings, is itself null and void for
ordinary appeal to the CA under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.
lack of jurisdiction.
Particularly instructive on this point is our ruling in Magestrado v. People of the
Finally, it must be stressed that only respondent Vios instituted the special civil action Philippines,4 thus:
assailing the MTC decision before the RTC. Private respondents Spouses Gregorio [sic,
The procedural issue herein basically hinges on the proper remedy which petitioner
should be Rogelio] and Teresita Antonio were never a party thereto. Yet, in its Decision,
should have availed himself of before the Court of Appeals: an ordinary appeal or a
the RTC found not only for respondent Vios, but as well for Spouses Gregorio and
petition for certiorari. Petitioner claims that he correctly questioned RTC-Branch 83's
Teresita Antonio. In fact, the RTC Decision, in its entirety, considered respondents
Order of dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358
Spouses Antonio a party to the proceedings before it, when actually they were not, to the
through a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Private respondent and
manifest prejudice of petitioner, as the Antonio's neither appealed the MTC Decision nor
public respondent People of the Philippines insist that an ordinary appeal was the
questioned the corresponding writ of execution issued pursuant thereto.
proper remedy.
The CA denied, via the Resolution also assailed in this petition, the motion for
reconsideration petitioner Vios subsequently filed.
We agree with respondents. We hold that the appellate court did not err in dismissing Rule 47 is a remedy based on external fraud and lack of jurisdiction.6 The intent to
petitioner's Petition for Certiorari, pursuant to Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of use this Rule suggests itself, not only because of the title of the petition, but because
Court (and not under Rule 44, Section 10, invoked by the Court of Appeals in its of its substance. Among other arguments, Pantangco claimed nullity of the RTC
Resolution dated 5 March 2001). decision for lack of jurisdiction; only interlocutory orders of the MTC are subject to
the RTC certiorari jurisdiction; final MTC orders must be appealed.7 He likewise
The correct procedural recourse for petitioner was appeal, not only because RTC-
stressed that the RTC has no jurisdiction to reverse the decision of the MTC using a
Branch 83 did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's
Rule 65 petition for certiorari because the Rule applies only to interlocutory orders
Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 but also because RTC-Branch
rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of
83's Order of dismissal was a final order from which petitioners should have
jurisdiction.8
appealed in accordance with Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Pantangco’s Rule 47 remedy is fatally defective because its use against an RTC
An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of a pending action, so
decision in a certiorari case is foreclosed by the availability of an appeal to the CA.
that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or
Section 1 of Rule 47 provides that it covers only annulment of judgments for which
judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. Au contraire, an interlocutory order does
the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
not dispose of the case completely, but leaves something to be done as regards the merits
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.9 Ramirez-Jongco
of the latter. RTC-Branch 83's Order dated 14 March 2001 dismissing petitioner's Petition
v. Veloso III10 instructively tells us:
for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 finally disposes of the said case and RTC-
Branch 83 can do nothing more with the case. The remedy of annulment of judgment can […] be resorted to only where ordinary
and other appropriate remedies, including appeal, are no longer available through no
Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final
fault of the petitioner. In the case at bar, the loss of the remedies of appeal and
order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared
certiorari is attributable to the petitioners. Despite the manifestations of their intention
by the Revised Rules of Court to be appealable. The manner of appealing an RTC
to file an appeal, and subsequently a petition for certiorari, and their request for an
judgment or final order is also provided in Rule 41 as follows:
extension of the filing period, the petitioners never availed of these remedies.
Section 2. Modes of appeal. — Realizing the consequence of their negligence, the petitioners filed a petition for
annulment of judgment in a last ditch effort to reverse the decision of the regional trial
(a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the court. The rules do not sanction petitioners’ procedural lapse.
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a
notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from Thus, the CA erred from the very beginning in ruling on Pantangco’s petition;
and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required Pantangco opted for a mode of review other than the appeal that the Rules of Court
except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the require.
law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served
In light of the erroneous remedy taken from
in like manner.
the RTC decision, is the RTC decision now
Certiorari generally lies only when there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy or the controlling or final determination of the
adequate remedy available to petitioners. Here, appeal was available. It was adequate to dispute between the parties?
deal with any question whether of fact or of law, whether of error of jurisdiction or grave
A. Law of the Case Doctrine versus Doctrine of Finality of Judgment
abuse of discretion or error of judgment which the trial court might have committed. But
petitioners instead filed a special civil action for certiorari.5 We start our consideration by re-stating the petitioners’ basic position: the RTC
decision has become final because of Pantangco’s clearly erroneous remedy; this final
As in this cited case, Pantangco did not appeal. In lieu of an appeal, Pantangco sought to
decision is now the law of the case between the parties.
review the RTC certiorari decision through a "Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the
RTC Decision" that is apparently based on Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. The law of the case doctrine applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a
ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for
further proceedings; the question settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65; if the petitioners wanted a review of the
case at the lower court and in any subsequent appeal. It means that whatever is MTC decision, they should have instead filed an appeal.
irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties
Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors
in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles
of judgment. When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so
or not, so long as the facts on which the legal rule or decision was predicated continue to
engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error was
be the facts of the case before the court.11
committed. Otherwise, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its
Based on this definition, the petitioners' heavy reliance on the law of the case doctrine is jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be
clearly misplaced. No opinion has been made in a former appeal that can be considered allowed. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. Consequently,
the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties thereafter. There is no an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is
remanded case to which a previous ruling on appeal applies. not correctable through the original civil action of certiorari. The supervisory
jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised
Rather than the law of the case doctrine, the petitioners may actually be invoking the
for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower
binding effect of what they view as a final RTC decision on the theory that the RTC
court – viz., on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or
decision already determined the rights of the parties with finality and binding effect. This
legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as
is the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, defined and explained
long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the
as follows:
province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of
It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no law or fact – a mistake of judgment – appeal is the proper remedy.13
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an
In the present case, the RTC – apart from nullifying the writ of execution the MTC
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is
issued – also reversed the MTC decision on the merits for being contrary to the
attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what
evidence; at the same time, the RTC applied and determined the rights of the parties
remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment.
under Article 448 of the Civil Code – an issue that the MTC never tackled.
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public
This is the kind of review that we have consistently held to be legally improper for
policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of
being outside the RTC’s certiorari jurisdiction to undertake. Thus, the RTC decision
adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some definite date fixed by law.
is partly void insofar as it modified and reversed the MTC decision on the merits. In
[…], the Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of immutability of final judgment is
this light, the RTC decision cannot be fully considered a final and controlling ruling
adhered to by necessity notwithstanding occasional errors that may result thereby, since
that must govern the parties. All RTC actions anchored on its decision on the merits,
litigations must somehow come to an end for otherwise, it would "be even more
particularly its determination of the rights of the parties under Article 448 of the Civil
intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to correct."12
Code, are consequently void for want of legal basis. On the other hand, the RTC
If this indeed is the legal doctrine the petitioners refer to, the question that arises is dispositions on matters within its jurisdiction or competence to decide are valid and
whether the RTC decision is a ruling to which the doctrine can apply. If it is a judgment binding. In this case, these are the dispositions related to the finality of the MTC
otherwise valid even if erroneous in content, then it is a judgment that should thereafter decision and the writ of execution it issued.
be followed. On the other hand, it cannot be so cited if it is an intrinsically void
To recapitulate, we hold that the CA erred in taking cognizance and fully ruling on
judgment.
Pantangco’s Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the RTC Decision despite
B. The status of the RTC Decision. Pantangco’s wrong remedy; Pantangco should have appealed and the availability of
appeal foreclosed all other review remedies. To this extent, we grant the petition. We
We cannot recognize the RTC decision as a completely valid decision; it is partly void for cannot, however, rule – as the petitioners advocate – that the CA’s error shall result in
lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the RTC has no jurisdiction to review, reverse or modify, the full enforcement of the RTC decision since this decision itself is partly void as
in any manner whatsoever, the MTC's decision on the merits of the ejectment case via a above discussed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition and declare
the Court of Appeals in error in ruling on the merits of respondent Pantangco’s Rule 47
petition. We DENY the petition insofar as it asks us to recognize the decision of the
Regional Trial Court dated August 4, 1997 as fully valid and binding; the only valid
aspects we can recognize are those relating to the lack of finality of the decision of the
Municipal Trial Court dated July 12, 1996 and the invalidity of the writ of execution that
the Municipal Trial Court subsequently issued. The parties are directed to act guided by
this Decision.

SO ORDERED.