SUSAN AHORRO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CELSO D. LAVINA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 71, PASIG CITY, SPS. ANTONIA & CARMELITO ALDO…

Ahorro versus Lavina

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition brought by Susan Ahorro and her co-petitioners against Judge Celso D. Lavina, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and against the private respondents, the spouses Antonia and Carmelito Aldover. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the trial court's orders in a civil case and to restrain the judge from proceeding further. The case matters because it shows how strictly the Supreme Court guards the remedy of certiorari: it will not step into a pending case below unless the trial court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The controversy began in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, where the private respondents, the spouses Aldover, filed a civil action against the petitioners. The trial court, through Judge Lavina, issued orders in that case that the petitioners considered adverse to them. Rather than wait for the case to run its course, the petitioners went directly to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari and prohibition, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the trial court. The Supreme Court, after careful scrutiny and evaluation of the allegations, found no compelling reason to disturb the challenged orders, holding that the grounds relied upon had already been discussed and considered, and that no new or material issues were actually raised to warrant a reversal.

Facts

The private respondents, the spouses Antonia and Carmelito Aldover, were parties to a civil case pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, presided over by Judge Celso D. Lavina. The petitioners, Susan Ahorro and others, were the opposing parties in that same case.

In the course of the proceedings, the trial court issued orders that the petitioners believed were issued with grave abuse of discretion. Instead of allowing the case to proceed and raising their objections in the ordinary course, the petitioners elevated the matter directly to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the trial court's orders and to stop the judge from acting further in the case.

The Supreme Court examined the petition and the allegations it contained. It found that the grounds raised had already been passed upon and considered, and that the petition presented no new or material issue that would justify reversing the trial court's actions.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the challenged orders.
• Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition to annul the trial court's orders and restrain the judge from proceeding with the case.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, on certiorari, provides:

When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This provision defines the extraordinary remedy the petitioners invoked and sets the threshold of grave abuse of discretion that they had to meet.

Rule 65, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, on prohibition, provides:

When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein.

This provision governs the companion prayer to restrain the trial judge from further proceeding in the case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. After a careful scrutiny and evaluation of the allegations, the Court held that the grounds relied upon by the petitioners had already been discussed and considered, and that no new or material issues were actually raised that would warrant a reversal of the challenged orders.

On the second issue, because the threshold requirement of grave abuse of discretion was not met, the petitioners were not entitled to the writs of certiorari and prohibition. The Court accordingly denied the petition for lack of merit, leaving the trial court's orders undisturbed.

Doctrine

The writs of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 are extraordinary remedies. They lie only when a tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petitioner who merely recycles grounds already passed upon, and raises no new or material issue, fails to meet this standard. The Supreme Court will not disturb the challenged orders absent a compelling reason.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, and the challenged orders of the trial court were left standing.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that certiorari and prohibition demand grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and grounds already considered and passed upon are not new or material issues. Examiners use this case to test the strict requisites of Rule 65 and the deference owed to a trial court's orders in the ordinary course of proceedings.