17. VICTORIA MILLING CO VS CA 7.
Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued
G.R. NO. 168062
JUNE 29, 2010
TOPIC: CERTIORARI
PETITIONER: VICTORIA MILLING CO (VMC)
RESPONDENT: CA AND INTL PHARMACEUTICALS INC (IPI)
PONENTE: DEL CASTILLO
FACTS:
1. VMC filed for unlawful detainer against IPI before the MCTC. The sheriff served summons
upon a certain Danilo Maglasang, IPI’s HR Dept. Manager.
2. IPI answered w/ reservation that its Answer should not be construed as waiver of lack of
MCTC jurisdiction over IPI’s person, for non-service of summons on the proper person. IPI
moved to hear the affirmative defense raised in its Answer and moved to suspend the
proceedings. MCTC denied the suspension and set the case for preliminary conference.
3. IPI filed a Rule 65 and prohibition w/ WPI suit to the CA to question MCTC’s jurisdiction
over its person. While in the MCTC’s preliminary conference, IPI moved to defer the said
conference while VMC moved to end it. Said conference was terminated and the parties
submitted their witnesses’ affidavits and other evidence.
4. The CA ruled to grant the certiorari and issued the WPI to enjoin the MCTC proceedings.
VMC did not file a MR on the ground that the CA ruling was patently null and void, but due
to the urgency of VMC’s predicament, it filed a Rule 65 case before the SC.
5. VMC: The certiorari filed by IPI that questioned MCTC’s interlocutory order in an ejectment
case is prohibited under Rule 70, Sec. 13 of the Rules as well as the Rules on Summary
Procedure. The rules are clear and the CA should have dismissed the case.
a. In Go vs CA, where the TC ordered the indefinite suspension of the ejectment case,
cannot be applied in this case;
b. IPI should have gone to the RTC before the CA hence violating the hierarchy of courts;
IPI does not have a clear right to the property as to be entitled to the WPI. The grant
of the WPI granted by the CA serves no purpose but cause undue and necessary delay
of what should have been the speedy disposition of the ejectment case.
6. IPI: The Rules on Summary Procedure was not intended to undermine the rules of
jurisdiction and of service of summons. Go vs CA should be applied in this as there is a
procedural void that justified the CA’s act of providing an equitable remedy of not
dismissing the petition for certiorari before it and issuing the WPI.
7. ISSUE: WoN the CA committed GATELEJ in issuing the WPI and failing to dismiss the
certiorari brought to it by IPI –
8. There was no procedural void that would cause delay Sec. 13, Rule 70 on forcible entry and
unlawful detainer provides
Sec. 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions. -The following petitions, motions, or pleadings
shall not be allowed:
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, or failure to comply with section 12;
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for a new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
6. Memoranda;
by the court;
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
10. Reply;
11. Third-party complaints;
12. Interventions
9. Although there may be a technical error in connection w/ the service of summons, there is
no showing of any substantive injustice that would cause IPI to disregard the clear
prohibition of filing petitions for certiorari.
10. The Rules on Summary Procedure, by exception, only permits MTD on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter but is silent on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the person. In StatCon, it is settled that the express mention of one thing implies the
exclusion of all others. From this it can be gleaned that allegation on the matter of lack of
jurisdiction over the person due to improper service of summons by itself, w/o a convincing
showing of any resulting substantive injustice, cannot hinder the MCTC’s ejectment
proceedings. Such ground should not be used to justify the violation of filing certiorari in
the said case.
11. IPI’s claims that the lack of rules on certain matters would lead to an injustice are
hypothetical and need not be addressed yet. What is important here is that IPI filed its
Answer and participated in the MCTC proceedings.
12. The goal of Rule on Summary procedure is to expedite in an inexpensive way to determine
cases w/o disregard to the technical rules. In this case, w/ weighing the consequences of
continuing the MCTC proceedings as against the consequences in allowing the certiorari,
it is more of value and just that we obey the Rules on Summary Procedure (i.e. prohibiting
petitions for certiorari)
13. To add, where IPI filed for certiorari w/c the CA took cognizance thus issued the WPI
enjoining the ejectment suit from taking its course in a speedy manner is the very thing
that the Rules on Summary Procedure seeks to prevent.
14. The certiorari that questioned the MCTC’s interlocutory order (i.e. denial of the suspension
of the case) is unneeded here. Adequate relief was available to IPI and had the right to
appeal before the RTC and no injustice may be caused by waiting on the MCTC’s ruling on
the ejectment case. The MCTC proceedings were summary in nature hence the time and
expense involved are minimal.
15. IPI already raised the issue of improper service of summons. If MCTC did commit an error
as to the matters raised by IPI, it can be threshed out during the appeal after MCTC decided
the case.
16. VMC was correct that Go was inapplicable as the facts are different from the present case.
There was no indefinite suspension involved here and no procedural void that would
otherwise cause the delay in the expeditious resolution that would warrant to apply Go.
17. In Go, SC held that the goal of Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve an expeditious
and inexpensive determination of cases w/o regard to technical rules thus pursuant to this,
the Rule prohibits petitions for certiorari to prevent unnecessary. Since the certiorari filed
before the CA is prohibited, it should had dismissed it.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 6, 2005 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals, together with the Writ of Preliminary Injunction, in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00365 is
NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is ORDERED to dismiss the petition for
certiorari before it docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00365.