PILLARS PROPERTY CORPORATION V. CENTURY COMMUNITIES CORPORATION
FACTS:
The petition alleges that on December 1, 2009, PPC filed a Complaint for sum of money against respondent in the amount of P6.7M for unpaid progress billings in connection with a construction contract where PPC agreed to deliver 210 housing units at "Canyon Ranch" in Cavite, among others at an agreed total consideration of P77.5M.
Petitioner also sued People's General Insurance Corporation (PGIC), which issued the bonds in favor of respondent to guarantee the performance of PPC's obligations, to exculpate PPC from any liability under the bonds since PPC intended to prove that it was not at fault in the performance of its obligations under the construction contract.
CCC filed a Motion to Dismiss averring that in the Contract a specific venue of action is the proper Court of Makati and thus the venue is improperly laid pursuant to Sec (1) c of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by CCC.
Petitioner filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeking the setting aside of the Orders of the RTC for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction and there being no appeal, or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The CA dismissed PPC's petition on the ground that the latter availed of the wrong remedy since it is the settled rule that an order of dismissal whether correct or not, is a final order and the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order.
PPC, filed the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in concluding that the remedy availed of by PCC is erroneous.
RULING:
The petition is partly meritorious.
The Court agrees with PPC that the CA was not correct when it dismissed outright PPC's Rule 65 certiorari petition to question the grant by the RTC of CCC's Motion to Dismiss and its dismissal of PPC's Complaint. PPC availed the correct remedy.
Section 1, Rule 41 Subject of Appeal - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice
In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
An order dismissing an action without prejudice is, thus, not subject to appeal but is reviewable by Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
The Court held that even on the assumption that the RTC erred in its determination of the proper venue, in this case, the Court is not persuaded that the RTC manifestly disregarded the basic rules and procedures or acted with obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure. If at all, the error of the RTC, assuming there was any, was a mere error of judgment that did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Given the stipulation on the venue in the Contract, where exclusivity is provided, the RTC had enough legal basis to apply Section 4 (b) and not Section 2, Rule 4.
Wherefore, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The COURT OF APPEALS Resolutions are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Order of the RTC are SUSTAINED.
Petitioner also sued People's General Insurance Corporation (PGIC), which issued the bonds in favor of respondent to guarantee the performance of PPC's obligations, to exculpate PPC from any liability under the bonds since PPC intended to prove that it was not at fault in the performance of its obligations under the construction contract.
CCC filed a Motion to Dismiss averring that in the Contract a specific venue of action is the proper Court of Makati and thus the venue is improperly laid pursuant to Sec (1) c of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by CCC.
Petitioner filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeking the setting aside of the Orders of the RTC for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction and there being no appeal, or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The CA dismissed PPC's petition on the ground that the latter availed of the wrong remedy since it is the settled rule that an order of dismissal whether correct or not, is a final order and the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order.
PPC, filed the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in concluding that the remedy availed of by PCC is erroneous.
RULING:
The petition is partly meritorious.
The Court agrees with PPC that the CA was not correct when it dismissed outright PPC's Rule 65 certiorari petition to question the grant by the RTC of CCC's Motion to Dismiss and its dismissal of PPC's Complaint. PPC availed the correct remedy.
Section 1, Rule 41 Subject of Appeal - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice
In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
An order dismissing an action without prejudice is, thus, not subject to appeal but is reviewable by Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
The Court held that even on the assumption that the RTC erred in its determination of the proper venue, in this case, the Court is not persuaded that the RTC manifestly disregarded the basic rules and procedures or acted with obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure. If at all, the error of the RTC, assuming there was any, was a mere error of judgment that did not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Given the stipulation on the venue in the Contract, where exclusivity is provided, the RTC had enough legal basis to apply Section 4 (b) and not Section 2, Rule 4.
Wherefore, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The COURT OF APPEALS Resolutions are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Order of the RTC are SUSTAINED.
No comments:
Post a Comment