University of the Philippines College of Law

NSM, D2021

Topic
Case No. 2010
Case Name Artistica v. Ciudad
Ponente Peralta

RELEVANT FACTS
 Petitioners Artistica Ceramica, Inc., Ceralinda, Inc., Cyber Ceramics, Inc., and Millennium, Inc., are
corporations located in Pasig City and engaged in the manufacture of ceramics.
 Petitioners’ manufacturing plants are located near the area occupied by respondents Ciudad Del Carmen
Homeowner’s Association, Inc., and Bukluran Purok II Residents Association.
 R sent letter complaints4 to various government agencies complaining of petitioners’ activities.
o alleged noise, air and water pollution emanating from the ceramicmanufacturing activities,
safety and fire hazard activities
o Closure Orders and CeaseandDesist Orders5 were issued against the operations of petitioners.
 petitioners and respondents entered into two agreements.
o first agreement was the June 29, 1997 Drainage Memorandum of Agreement6 (Drainage MOA)
and the
o second was the November 14, 1997 Memorandum of Agreement7 (MOA).
 MOA, on the other hand, was an agreement by respondents to cause the dismissal of all
the complaints filed by them against petitioners in exchange for certain undertakings
during the lifetime of the MOA.
 Among the undertakings agreed to by petitioners are the following: 1) the cessation of
their manufacturing activities on or before May 7, 2000; 2) the putting up of an
Environmental Guarantee Fund in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the
Department of Energy and Natural Resources; 3) the furnishing of a performance bond;
and 4) and the creation of an Arbitration and Monitoring Committee.
 respondents filed with the Arbitration Committee a Complaint8 alleging the failure of petitioners to
comply with the terms of the agreement
o Mariwasa Subsidiaries is directed to give to Ciudad del Carmen Homeowners Association of the
Residents Associations the amount of P300,000.00 as the participation of the Mariwasa
Subsidiaries in the construction
o in spite of the construction of the drainage system, there continues to be flooding in Bukluran
Purok Dos.
o To cease operations
o Performance bond: Mariwasa did not comply with undertakings in MOA
o To pay damages (1M and 100k)
 Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, specifically asserting that the Arbitration Committee
erred in failing to rule on or to declare the automatic forfeiture of the performance bond in their favor.
 Petitioners and respondents separately filed a petition for review12 before the CA. Petitioners sought to
question the award of damages by the Arbitration Committee to respondents.
 CA: consolidated the cases and ruled that 25M forfeiture of bond in favor of R

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

 University of the Philippines College of Law
Issue
W/N CA acted with GAOD in NO
declaring that P failed in
undertaking and awarded
damages and forfeiture of
perf bond
WHEREFORE, …
NSM, D2021
Ratio
 WRONG REMEDY: REMEDY FROM JUDGEMENT OR FINAL ORDER
SHOULD BE THROUGH RULE 45, NOT 65
o a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action
based on the specific ground therein provided and, as a
general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost
remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that to be taken
under Rule 45
o One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available
appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an
appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the
ground therefore is grave abuse of discretion.
o petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the January
4, 2005 CA Decision, which was, however, denied by the CA
via a Resolution dated March 18, 2005.
o from March 28, 2005, petitioners had 15 days,20 or until April
12, 2005, to appeal the CA Resolution under Rule 45. Clearly,
petitioners had an available appeal under Rule 45
 USED RULE 65 AS SUBSTITUTE FOR A LOST APPEAL:
o a) its filing the said petition 6 days after the expiration of the
15day reglementary period for filing a Rule 45 appeal; and
o b) its petition which makes specious allegations of “grave
abuse of discretion.
o BUT, IT CLAIMS CA “ERRED” in its ruling. These are mere
errors of judgment which would have been the proper
subjects of a petition for review under rule 45.
 MERELY ERRORS OF JUDGMENT, CORRECTIBLE BY APPEAL, NOT
GAOD
o ERRORS of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil
action for certiorari
o If every error committed by the trial court or quasijudicial
agency were to be the proper subject of a special civil action
for certiorari, then trial would never end and the dockets of
appellate courts would be clogged beyond measure.
 NO LENIENCY BEC NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY RULE 45 WAS NOT
USED
o The attempt to skirt away from the fact that the 15day period
to file an appeal under Rule 45 had already lapsed and did not
even address the same in their memorandum and comment
o No extraordinary circ to warrant an exception
RULING
SEPARATE OPINIONS
University of the Philippines College of Law
NSM, D2021

NOTES