Holy Trinity Realty - Republic V Caguioa
Holy Trinity Realty - Republic V Caguioa
Abacan
April 17, 2013
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not MTCC has jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case?
Ruling:
The CA committed reversible error in ruling that the MTCC had no jurisdiction
over the unlawful detainer case. What was before it was a petition for certiorari
against the MTCCs denial of respondents motion to quash. The petition was not
directed at the MTCCs Consolidated Decision, nor could it be, because a Rule 65
petition for certiorari must be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the
judgment. Since respondents failed to timely appeal the Consolidated Decision,
it has long attained finality and has become immutable and unalterable pursuant
to the doctrine on finality of judgment. Thus, as respondents sole argument in
their motion to quash was the existence of a material supervening event, and as
the MTCCs denial of their motion was premised on the conclusion that their
subsequent acquisition of ownership was not a supervening event, the resolution
of the present case should be limited to that issue. Furthermore, MTCC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in denying respondents motion to quash. The
MTCC correctly denied their motion to the effect that the subsequent acquisition
of ownership is not a supervening event that will bar the execution of the
judgment in the unlawful detainer case.
Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A) No. 7227 or the Bases Conversion and
Development Act of 1992 which created the Subic Special Economic and Freeport
Zone (SBF) and the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). Section 12 of R.A No.
7227 of the law provides that no taxes, local and national, shall be imposed within
the
Subic
Special
Economic
Zone.
Pursuant
to
the
law,
Indigo Distribution Corporation, et al., which are all domestic corporations doing
business at the SBF, applied for and were granted Certificates of Registration and
Tax Exemption by the SBMA.
Congress subsequently passed R.A. No. 9334, which provides that all
applicable taxes, duties, charges, including excise taxes due thereon shall
be applied to cigars and cigarettes, distilled spirits, fermented liquors and wines
brought directly into the duly chartered or legislated freeports of the Subic
Economic Freeport Zone. On the basis of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9334, SBMA issued
First, the present petition was filed within the reglementary period. Contrary to
the private respondents position, the 60- day period within which to file the petition
for certiorari is counted from the Republics receipt of the July 5, 2006 order denying
the latters motion for reconsideration. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is
clear on this point "In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely
filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be
counted from notice of the denial of said motion."
Second, while the principle of hierarchy of courts does indeed require that
recourses should be made to the lower courts before they are made to the higher
courts, this principle is not an absolute rule and admits of exceptions under welldefined circumstances. In several cases, we have allowed direct invocation of this
Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari on the ground of special and
important reasons clearly stated in the petition; 16 when dictated by public welfare
and the advancement of public policy; when demanded by the broader interest of
justice; when the challenged orders were patent nullities; 17 or when analogous
exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified our immediate
and direct handling of the case. 18 The demonstrated extent of the respondent
judges actions and their effects constitute special and compelling circumstances
calling for our direct and immediate attention.
Lastly, under our rules of procedure,19 service of the petition on a party, when
that party is represented by a counsel of record, is a patent nullity and is not
binding upon the party wrongfully served. 20 This rule, however, is a procedural
standard that may admit of exceptions when faced with compelling reasons of
substantive justice manifest in the petition and in the surrounding circumstances of
the case.21 Procedural rules can bow to substantive considerations through a liberal
construction aimed at promoting their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. 22 Under circumstances, the
Court was satisfied with the Republics explanation on why it failed to initially
comply with the rule on service of the present petition; its subsequent compliance
with the rule after being informed of the presence of counsels of record sufficiently
warrants the rules relaxed application. 23 The lack of a proper service unlike the
situation when the Republic was simply confronted with already-admitted
complaints-in-intervention did not result in any prejudice; the private respondents
themselves were actually served with, and duly received, their copies of the present
petition, allowing them to comment and to be heard on the petition.