Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crisologo vs. Jewm
Crisologo vs. Jewm
JEWM SCRA 154 (2012), a related administrative case, the Court found the trial
judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law when it disregarded the claims of
G.R. No. 196894. March 3, 2014.* Spouses Crisologo to participate.
JESUS G. CRISOLOGO and NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO, 646
petitioners, vs. JEWM AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Interlocutory Orders; The
respondent. remedy against an interlocutory order, not subject of an appeal, is an
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable Parties; In an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the
action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
_______________ grave abuse of discretion.—At any rate, the remedy against an
* THIRD DIVISION. interlocutory order, not subject of an appeal, is an appropriate special civil
645back of a certificate of title, the persons considered as action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is rendered
indispensable include those whose liens appear as annotations pursuant to without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Only
Section 108 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.—In an action for the then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.
cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back of a certificate of title, Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The Supreme Court has ruled
the persons considered as indispensable include those whose liens appear that technical rules of procedures should be used to promote, not frustrate
as annotations pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit: Section the cause of justice.—In many instances, the Court has ruled that technical
108. Amendment and alteration of certificates.—No erasure, alteration or rules of procedures should be used to promote, not frustrate the cause of
amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a justice. Rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate
certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid application may, for
same by the Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First good and deserving reasons, have to give way to, and be subordinated by,
Instance. A registered owner or other person having an interest in the need to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal cause.
registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable Parties; Time
approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the absence of an
to the court upon the ground that the registered interests of any indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant inchoate appearing on void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even
the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not to those present.—Be it noted that the effect of their non-participation as
appearing upon the certificates have arisen or been created; or that an indispensable parties is to preclude the judgment, orders and the
omission or error was made in entering a certificate or memorandum proceedings from attaining finality. Time and again, the Court has ruled
thereon, or on any duplicate certificate; x x x or upon any other reasonable that the absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions
ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the
all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new absent parties but even to those present. Consequently, the proceedings
certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a before RTC-Br. 14 were null and void including the assailed orders, which
certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, may be “ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.”
requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper. PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The reason behind this compulsory joinder The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
of indispensable parties is the complete determination of all possible issues, R.A.V. Saguisag & Associates for petitioners.
not only between the parties themselves but also as regards other persons 647
who may be affected by the judgment.—The reason behind this compulsory Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for respondent.
joinder of indispensable parties is the complete determination of all
possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also as MENDOZA, J.:
regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. In this case, This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
RTC-Br. 14, despite repeated pleas by Spouses Crisologo to be recognized Court challenging the May 6, 2011 Decision[1] of the Court of
as indispensable parties, failed to implement the mandatory import of the Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 03896-MIN, which affirmed the
aforecited rule. In fact, in Sps. Crisologo v. Judge George E. Omelio, 682 September 27, 2010,[2]October 7, 2010[3] and November 9, 2010[4] Orders
Page 1 of 7
of the Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 14 (RTC-Br. 14), in Civil among others, the subject properties covered by TCT Nos. 325675 and
Case No. 33,551-2010, an action for Cancellation of Lien. It is 325676, now, in the name of JEWM.
entitled “JEWM AgroIndustrial Corporation v. The Registry of Deeds for In the same proceedings, JEWM immediately filed its Affidavit of Third
the City of Davao, Sheriff Robert Medialdea, John & Jane Does, and all Party Claim and the Urgent Motion Ad Cautelam. It prayed for the
persons acting under their directions.” exclusion of the subject properties from the notice of sale. In an order, dated
This controversy stemmed from various cases of collection for sum of August 26, 2010, however, the motion was denied. In turn, the Spouses
money filed against So Keng Kok, the owner of various properties including Crisologo posted a bond in order to proceed with the execution.
two (2) parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 292597 and 292600 (subject To protect its interest, JEWM filed a separate action for cancellation of
properties), which were attached by various creditors including the lien with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction before RTC-
petitioners in this case. As a result, the levies were annotated on the back Br. 14, docketed as Civil Case No. 33,551-2010. It prayed for the issuance
of the said titles. of a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the public sale of the subject
Petitioners Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo (Spouses properties covered in the writ of execution issued pursuant to the ruling of
Crisologo) were the plaintiffs in two (2) collection cases before RTC, Branch RTC-Br. 15; the cancellation of all the annotations on the back of the
15, Davao City (RTC-Br. 15), docketed as Civil Case Nos. 26,810-98 and pertinent TCTs; and the issuance of a permanent injunction order after
26,811-98, against Robert Limso, So Keng Kok, et. al. Respondent JEWM trial on the merits. “The Regis-
Agro-Industrial Corporation (JEWM) was the successor-in-interest of one 649ter of Deeds of Davao City, Sheriff Robert Medialdea, John and Jane
Sy Sen Ben, the plaintiff in another collection case before RTC, Branch 8, Does and all persons acting under their directions” were impleaded as
Davao City (RTC-Br. 8), docketed as Civil Case No. 26,513-98, against the defendants.
same defendants. At the scheduled hearing before RTC-Br. 14 on September 22, 2010,
_______________ Spouses Crisologo’s counsel appeared and filed in open court their Very
[1] Rollo, pp. 26-36. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., Urgent Manifestation questioning the authority of the said court to
with Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Associate Justice restrain the execution proceedings in RTC-Br. 15. JEWM opposed it on the
Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring. ground that Spouses Crisologo were not parties in the case.
[2] Id., at pp. 133-137. On September 24, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed an Omnibus Motion
[3] Id., at p. 141. praying for the denial of the application for writ or preliminary injuction
[4] Id., at pp. 142-143. filed by JEWM and asking for their recognition as parties. No motion to
648 intervene was, however, filed as the Spouses Crisologo believed that it was
On October 19, 1998, RTC-Br. 8 rendered its decision based on a unnecessary since they were already the John and Jane Does named in the
compromise agreement, dated October 15, 1998, between the parties complaint.
wherein the defendants in said case were directed to transfer the subject In the Order, dated September 27, 2010, RTC-Br. 14 denied Spouses
properties in favor of Sy Sen Ben. The latter subsequently sold the subject Crisologo’s Omnibus Motion and granted JEWM’s application for a writ of
properties to one Nilda Lam who, in turn, sold the same to JEWM on June preliminary injunction.
1, 2000. Thereafter, TCT Nos. 325675 and 325676 were eventually issued On October 1, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed a Very Urgent Omnibus
in the name of JEWM, both of which still bearing the same annotations as Motion before RTC-Br. 14 praying for reconsideration and the setting aside
well as the notice of lis pendens in connection with the other pending cases of its September 27, 2010 Order. This was denied in the RTC-Br. 14’s
filed against So Keng Kok. October 7, 2010 Order for lack of legal standing in court considering that
A year thereafter, Spouses Crisologo prevailed in the separate their counsel failed to make the written formal notice of appearance. The
collection case filed before RTC-Br. 15 against Robert Lim So and So Keng copy of this order was received by Spouses Crisologo on October 22, 2010.
Koc (defendants). Thus, on July 1, 1999, the said defendants were ordered It must be noted, however, that on October 27, 2010, they received another
to solidarily pay the Spouses Crisologo. When this decision attained order, likewise dated October 7, 2010, giving JEWM time to comment on
finality, they moved for execution. On June 15, 2010, a writ was eventually their Very Urgent Omnibus Motion filed on October 1, 2010. In its Order,
issued. Acting on the same, the Branch Sheriff issued a notice of sale dated November 9, 2010, however, RTC-Br. 14 again denied the Very
scheduling an auction on August 26, 2010. The notice of sale included, Urgent Motion previously filed by Spouses Crisologo.
Page 2 of 7
On November 12, 2010, JEWM moved to declare the “defendants” in certificate, dated March 17, 2011, was issued declaring the January 10,
default which was granted in an order given in open court on November 2011 decision final and executory.
19, 2010. On May 6, 2011, the CA eventually denied the Amended Petition filed
650 by Spouses Crisologo for lack of merit. It ruled that the writ of preliminary
Spouses Crisologo then filed their Very Urgent Manifestation, dated injunction subject of the petition was already fait accompli and, as such,
November 30, 2010, arguing that they could not be deemed as defaulting the issue of grave abuse of discretion attributed to RTC-Br. 14 in granting
parties because they were not referred to in the pertinent motion and order the relief had become moot and academic. It further held that the failure
of default. of Spouses Crisologo to file their motion to intervene under Rule 19
On November 19, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed with the CA a petition rendered Rule 65 inapplicable as a vehicle to ventilate their supposed right
for certiorari[5] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the RTC-Br. in the case.[9]
14 orders, dated September 27, 2010, October 7, 2010 and November 9, Hence, this petition.
2010, all of which denied their motion to be recognized as parties. They
also prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining ISSUES
Order (TRO) and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. I. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the
In its Resolution, dated January 6, 2011, the CA denied the application action for Cancellation of Annotations may proceed
for a TRO, but directed Spouses Crisologo to amend their petition. On even without notice to and impleading the party/ies
January 19, 2011, the Spouses Crisologo filed their Amended who caused the annotations, in clear contravention
Petition[6] with prayers for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of of the rule on joinder of parties and basic due
preliminary injunction, the annulment of the aforementioned orders of process.
RTC-Br. 14, and the issuance of an order dissolving the writ of preliminary II. The Court of Appeals erred in applying a very
injunction issued in favor of JEWM. constrictive interpretation of the rules in
Pending disposition of the Amended Petition by the CA, JEWM filed a _______________
motion on December 6, 2010 before RTC-Br. 14 asking for the resolution of [8] Id., at p. 177.
the case on the merits. [9] Id., at p. 36.
On January 10, 2011, RTC-Br. 14 ruled in favor of JEWM, with the 652
dispositive portion of its Decision[7]stating as follows: holding that a motion to intervene is the only way an
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby otherwise real party in interest could participate.
rendered in favor of the plaintiff as follows: III. The Court of Appeals erred in denying our
1. the preliminary writ of injunction issued on October 5, 2010 is hereby application for the issuance of a temporary
made permanent; restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary
2. directing herein defendant Registry of Deeds of Davao City where the injunction.
subject lands are located, to IV. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the
_______________ issues raised by petitioners before it [had] been
[5] Dated November 15, 2010. mooted by the January 10, 2011 decision of RTC
[6] Rollo, pp. 146-159. Branch 14.[10]
[7] Id., at pp. 175-177. Penned by Judge George E. Omelio. Spouses Crisologo submit as error the CA affirmation of the RTC-Br.
651cancel all existing liens and encumbrances on TCT Nos. T-325675 and 14 ruling that the action for cancellation may proceed without them being
T-325676 registered in the name of the plaintiff, and pay the impleaded. They allege deprivation of their right to due process when they
3. cost of suit. were not impleaded in the case before RTC-Br. 14 despite the claim that
SO ORDERED.[8] they stand, as indispensable parties, to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the action for the cancellation of annotations covering the
Spouses Crisologo then filed their Omnibus Motion Ex Abudanti ad subject properties. They cite Gonzales v. Judge Bersamin,[11] among
Cautelam, asking RTC-Br. 14 to reconsider the above decision. Because no others, as authority. In that case, the Court ruled that pursuant to Section
motion for intervention was filed prior to the rendition of the judgment, a 108 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, notice must be given to all
Page 3 of 7
parties in interest before the court may hear and determine the petition In their Reply,[13] Spouses Crisologo restate the applicability of
for the cancellation of annotations on the certificates of title. Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 to the effect that any cancellation of
The Spouses Crisologo also question the statement of the CA that their annotation of certificates of title must be carried out by giving notice to all
failure to file the motion to intervene under Rule 19 before RTC-Br. 14 parties-in-interest. This they forward despite their recognition of the
barred their participation in the cancellation proceedings. They put mootness of their assertion over the subject properties, to wit:
emphasis on the court’s duty to, at the very least, suspend the proceedings Again, we respect JAIC’s position that “the claims of subsequent
before it and have such indispensable parties impleaded. attaching creditors (including petitioners’) have been rendered moot and
_______________ academic, and hence the entries in favor of said creditors have no more
[10] Id., at p. 11. legal basis and therefore must be cancelled.” But we likewise at least ask
[11] 325 Phil. 120; 254 SCRA 652 (1996). a modicum of respect by at least being notified and heard.[14]
653
As to the ruling on the denial of their application for the issuance of a The Ruling of the Court
TRO or writ of preliminary injunction, Spouses Crisologo claim that their The crux of this controversy is whether the CA correctly ruled that
adverse interest, evinced by the annotations at the back of the certificates RTC-Br. 14 acted without grave abuse of discretion in failing to recognize
of title, warranted the issuance of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction Spouses Crisologo as indispensable parties in the case for cancellation of
against JEWM’s attempt to cancel the said annotations in violation of their lien.
fundamental right to due process. In this respect, the Court agrees with Spouses Crisologo.
Lastly, Spouses Crisologo cast doubt on the CA ruling that the issues In an action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back
presented in their petition were mooted by the RTC-Br. 14 Decision, dated of a certificate of title, the persons considered as indispensable include
January 10, 2011. Having been rendered without impleading those whose liens appear as annotations pursuant to Section 108 of P.D.
indispensable parties, the said decision was void and could not have No. 1529,[15] to wit:
mooted their petition. Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates.—No erasure,
In their Comment,[12] JEWM asserts that Spouses Crisologo’s failure alteration or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after
to file a motion to intervene, pleadings-in-intervention, appeal or the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the
annulment of judgment, which were plain, speedy and adequate remedies attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order of the
then available to them, rendered recourse to Rule 65 as improper; that proper Court of First Instance. A registered
Spouses Crisologo lacked the legal standing to file a Rule 65 petition since _______________
they were not impleaded in the proceedings before RTC-Br. 14; and that [13] Id., at pp. 335-340.
Spouses Crisologo were not indispensable parties since their rights over [14] Id., at p. 338.
the properties had been rendered ineffective by the final and executory [15] Entitled as “Amending and Codifying the Laws relative to
October 19, 1998 Decision of RTC-Br. 8 which disposed unconditionally and Registration of Property and for other purposes.”
absolutely the subject properties in favor of its predecessor-in-interest. 655owner or other person having an interest in registered property, or, in
JEWM further argues that, on the assumption that Section 108 of P.D. No. proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner
1529 applies, no notice to Spouses Crisologo was required because they of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground
were not real parties-in-interest in the case before RTC-Br. 14, or even if that the registered interests of any description, whether vested,
they were, their non-participation in the proceedings was because of their contingent, expectant inchoate appearing on the certificate, have
failure to properly intervene pursuant to Rule 19; and, lastly, that the case terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the
before RTC-Br. 14 became final and executory because Spouses Crisologo certificates have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was
did not perfect an appeal therefrom, thus, rendering the issues in the CA made in entering a certificate or memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate
petition moot and academic. certificate; x x x or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may
_______________ hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and
[12] Rollo, pp. 241-262. may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry
654 or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other
Page 4 of 7
relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if John and Jane Does, Judge Omelio refused to acknowledge their
necessary, as it may consider proper. appearance and ordered the striking out of Sps. Crisologos’ pleadings. For
this reason,
In Southwestern University v. Laurente,[16] the Court held that the _______________
cancellation of the annotation of an encumbrance cannot be ordered [17] Rule 3, Rules of Court.
without giving notice to the parties annotated in the certificate of title [18] Moldes v. Villanueva, 505 Phil. 767; 468 SCRA 697 (2005).
itself. It would, thus, be an error for a judge to contend that no notice is [19] A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 154.
required to be given to all the persons whose liens were annotated at the 657the Investigating Justice recommended admonishing Judge Omelio for
back of a certificate of title. failing to recognize the Sps. Crisologo as indispensable parties in that case.
Here, undisputed is the fact that Spouses Crisologo’s liens were indeed xxx xxx xxx
annotated at the back of TCT Nos. 325675 and 325676. Thus, as persons Clearly, the cancellation of the annotation of the sale without notifying
with their liens annotated, they stand to be benefited or injured by any the buyers, Sps. Crisologo, is a violation of the latter’s right to due process.
order relative to the cancellation of annotations in the pertinent TCTs. In Since this is the second time that Judge Omelio has issued an order which
other words, they are as indispensable as JEWM itself in the final fails to notify or summon the indispensable parties, we find Judge Omelio
disposition of the case for cancellation, being one of the many lien holders. guilty of gross ignorance of the law, with a warning that repetition of the
_______________ same or similar act will merit a stiffer penalty in the future.
[16] 135 Phil. 44; 26 SCRA 52 (1968). xxx
656 WHEREFORE, … We find Judge George E. Omelio GUILTY of four
As indispensable parties, Spouses Crisologo should have been joined as counts of the serious charge of gross ignorance of the law for the following
defendants in the case pursuant to Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, acts: (a) refusing to recognize Spouses Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B.
to wit: Crisologo as indispensable parties; … in violation of the latter’s right to
SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.—Parties in due process. Accordingly, we impose upon Judge George E. Omelio the
interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall penalty of fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), with a warning that
be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. [17] repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.[20]
The reason behind this compulsory joinder of indispensable parties is
the complete determination of all possible issues, not only between the The trial court should have exercised prudence in denying Spouses
parties themselves but also as regards other persons who may be affected Crisologo’s pleas to be recognized as indispensable parties. In the words of
by the judgment. [18] the Court, “Judge Omelio should be penalized for failing to recognize Sps.
In this case, RTC-Br. 14, despite repeated pleas by Spouses Crisologo Crisologo as indispensable parties and for requiring them to file a motion
to be recognized as indispensable parties, failed to implement the to intervene, considering that a simple perusal of the certificates of title
mandatory import of the aforecited rule. would show Sps. Crisologo’s adverse rights because their liens are
In fact, in Sps. Crisologo v. Judge George E. Omelio,[19]a related annotated at the back of the titles.”[21]
administrative case, the Court found the trial judge guilty of gross _______________
ignorance of the law when it disregarded the claims of Spouses Crisologo [20] A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 192-193.
to participate. In part, the Court stated: [21] Crisologo v. Omelio, supra note 19, at p. 182.
658
This is not the first time Judge Omelio has rendered a decision affecting This manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures constitutes a
third parties’ interests, without even notifying the indispensable parties. grave abuse of discretion.
In the first disputed case, JEWM Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Register In State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman v. Judge Medel
of Deeds, Sheriff Medialdea, John & Jane Does and all persons acting Belen,[22] the Court held as inexcusable abuse of authority the trial judge’s
under their directions, Judge Omelio failed to cause the service of proper “obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure.”
summons upon the John and Jane Does impleaded in the complaint. Even Such level of ignorance is not a mere error of judgment. It amounts to
when Sps. Crisologo voluntarily appeared in court to be recognized as the “evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
Page 5 of 7
by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law,”[23] or in essence, grave right, as indispensable parties, to participate in a proceeding in which their
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. indispensability was obvious. Indeed, appeal cannot constitute an
Needless to say, judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory adequate, speedy and plain remedy.
acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws The same is also true if recourse to Annulment of Judgment under Rule
and apply them properly in good faith as judicial competence requires no 47 is made since this remedy presupposes a final judgment already
less.[24] rendered by a trial court.
Despite the clear existence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of _______________
RTC-Br. 14, JEWM asserts technical grounds on why the CA did not err in [25] Spouses Leynes v. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals,
dismissing the petition viaRule 65. It states that: et. al., G.R. No. 154462, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 25, 40.
a) The Crisologos could have used other available remedies such as 660
intervention under Rule 19, an appeal of the judgment, or even an At any rate, the remedy against an interlocutory order, not subject of
annulment of judgment, which are, by all means, plain, speedy and an appeal, is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided
adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law; that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction
b) The Crisologos lack legal standing to file the Rule 65 petition since they or with grave abuse of discretion. Only then is certiorari under Rule 65
were not impleaded in the Branch 14 case. allowed to be resorted to.[26]
_______________ This takes particular relevance in this case where, as previously
[22] A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 477. discussed, RTC-Br. 14 acted with grave abuse of discretion in not
[23] Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, recognizing Spouses Crisologo as indispensable parties to the pertinent
580 Phil. 135, 140; 558 SCRA 148, 153 (2008). action.
[24] Enriquez v. Judge Caminade, 519 Phil. 781; 485 SCRA 98 (2006), Based on the above, recourse to the CA via Rule 65 would have already
citing Abbariao v. Beltran, 505 Phil. 510; 468 SCRA 419 (2005). been proper, except for one last issue, that is, Spouses Crisologo’s legal
659 standing to file the same. JEWM cites DBP v. COA[27] where the Court
The rule is that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only if held:
there is no appeal, or any plain speedy, and adequate remedy in the The petition for certiorari under Rule 65, however, is not available to
ordinary course of law. any person who feels injured by the decision of a tribunal, board or officer
In this case, no adequate recourse, at that time, was available to exercising judicial or quasi-judicialfunctions. The ‘person aggrieved’ under
Spouses Crisologo, except resorting to Rule 65. Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the special civil action
Although Intervention under Rule 19 could have been availed of, failing of certiorari pertains only to one who was a party in the proceedings before
to use this remedy should not prejudice Spouses Crisologo. It is the duty of the court a quo, or in this case before the COA. To hold otherwise would
RTC-Br. 14, following the rule on joinder of indispensable parties, to simply open the courts to numerous and endless litigations.
recognize them, with or without any motion to intervene. Through a
cursory reading of the titles, the Court would have noticed the adverse Under normal circumstances, JEWM would be correct in their
rights of Spouses Crisologo over the cancellation of any annotations in the averment that the lack of legal standing on the part of Spouses Crisologo
subject TCTs. in the case before RTC-Br. 14 prevents the latter’s recourse via Rule 65.
Neither will appeal prove adequate as a remedy since only the original This case, however, is an exception. In many instances, the Court has
parties to an action can appeal.[25] Here, Spouses Crisologo were never ruled that technical rules of procedures should be used to promote, not
impleaded. Hence, they could not have utilized appeal as they never frustrate the cause of justice. Rules of
possessed the required legal standing in the first place. _______________
And even if the Court assumes the existence of the legal standing to [26] Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011, 655
appeal, it must be remembered that the questioned orders were SCRA 553, 567-568, citing F. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium 540
interlocutory in character and, as such, Spouses Crisologo would have to (8th revised ed.).
wait, for the review by appeal, until the rendition of the judgment on the [27] 467 Phil. 62; 422 SCRA 459 (2004).
merits, which at that time may not be coming as speedy as practicable. 661procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate the
While waiting, Spouses Crisologo would have to endure the denial of their attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid application may, for good
Page 6 of 7
and deserving reasons, have to give way to, and be subordinated by, the Notes.—Joinder of indispensable parties is compulsorybeing a sine qua
need to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal cause.[28] non for the exercise of judicial power. (Guy vs. Guy, 680 SCRA 214 [2012])
Be it noted that the effect of their non-participation as indispensable An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the
parties is to preclude the judgment, orders and the proceedings from controversy or subject matter of a case that a final adjudication cannot be
attaining finality. Time and again, the Court has ruled that the absence of made in his or her absence, without injuring or affecting that interest.
an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and (Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 699 SCRA 16 [2013])
void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even ——o0o——
to those present. Consequently, the proceedings before RTC-Br. 14 were _______________
null and void including the assailed orders, which may be “ignored ** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A.
wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.”[29] Abad, per Special Order No. 1640 dated February 19, 2014.
To turn a blind eye to the said nullity and, in turn, rule as improper the
recourse to Rule 65 by the lack of legal standing is to prolong the denial of
due process to the persons whose interests are indispensable to the final
disposition of the case. It will only result in a protracted litigation as
Spouses Crisologo will be forced to rely on a petition for the annulment of
judgment before the CA (as the last remaining remedy), which may again
reach this Court. To prevent multiplicity of suits and to expedite the swift
administration of justice, the CA should have applied liberality by striking
down the assailed orders despite the lack of legal standing on the part of
Spouses Crisologo to file the Rule 65 petition before it. Besides, this lacking
requirement, of which Spouses Crisologo were not even at fault, is precisely
the reason why this controversy arose.
_______________
[28] Santos v. Litton Mills, Incorporated, G.R. No. 170646, June 22,
2011, 652 SCRA 510, citing Fiel v. Kris Security Systems, Inc., 448 Phil.
657, 662; 400 SCRA 533, 536 (2003).
[29] Buena v. Sapnay, 116 Phil. 1023; 6 SCRA 706 (1962),
citing BancoEspañol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 (1918); Lipana v.
Court of First Instance of Cavite, 74 Phil. 18 (1942).
662
All told, the CA erred in dismissing the amended petition filed before it
and in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC-Br. 14.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 6, 2011 Decision
of the Court of Appeals is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The September
27, 2010, October 7, 2010 and November 9, 2010 Orders of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City, are likewise NULLIFIED and SET
ASIDE. Civil Case No. 33,551-2010 is hereby REMANDED to the trial
court for further proceedings. The respondent is ordered to implead all
parties whose annotations appear at the back of Transfer Certificate of
Title Nos. 325675 and 325676.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Bersamin** and Leonen,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment nullified and set aside.
Page 7 of 7