ZOSIMO ARROYO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL (BR. II), ERNESTO T. SANTOS AND RAMON A. SANTOS-ROXAS, RESPONDENTS.

Arroyo versus Mencias

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court by Zosimo Arroyo, a rice lessee who was not a party to a pending action for accounting and partition among co-owners of real estate, against Judge Eulogio Mencias of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and the plaintiffs in that action, Ernesto Santos and Ramon Santos-Roxas. Arroyo asks the Court to set aside a trial court order directing him and other lessees to deposit their rentals with the clerk of court, and to restrain its enforcement. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on two points every examinee must know: the extraordinary writ of certiorari requires that there be no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and the proper remedy of a stranger to a case who is reached by an order therein is a special appearance and a motion for reconsideration in the court of origin, not an immediate resort to the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

Ernesto Santos and Ramona Santos, the latter assisted by her husband Victorio Roxas, instituted an action for accounting and partition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against their co-owners, and prayed for the appointment of a receiver. The trial court denied the motion to appoint the Prudential Bank and Trust Company as receiver. Instead, on January 9, 1963, it issued an order commanding Zosimo Arroyo and eight other lessees of the co-owned properties to deposit with the clerk of court all rentals covering the portions leased to them, so that the rentals may later be distributed among the parties in proportion to their respective shares as will be determined by the Court. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Arroyo, without first bringing his case to the attention of the lower court, came directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction and for the setting aside of the January 9, 1963 order. The Supreme Court issued the preliminary injunction, and several parties were later allowed to intervene. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

Facts

Ernesto, Ramona, Nicanor, Miguel, Manuel, Remedios, Jose, Consuelo, Erlinda, and Serafin, all surnamed Santos, together with Nicolas Belmonte and the heirs of Victorio C. Dionisio, were co-owners of various parcels of real estate. On March 20, 1961, Ernesto Santos and Ramona Santos, the latter assisted by her husband Victorio Roxas, sued their co-owners for accounting and partition and asked for the appointment of a receiver.

The defendants answered that the properties, held in common, were not administered by anybody in particular; that all the properties were leased and the rentals divided equally among the co-owners after deducting expenses. The plaintiffs then filed an urgent motion to appoint the Prudential Bank and Trust Company as receiver. The motion was denied.

Instead, on January 9, 1963, the trial court ordered Zosimo Arroyo and eight other lessees of the co-owned properties to deposit with the clerk of court all rentals covering the portions leased to them, so that the rentals may later be distributed among the parties in proportion to their respective shares as will be determined by the Court. The defendants moved for reconsideration; the motion was denied. Arroyo then filed the present petition for certiorari, insisting that he was not a party in the action for partition, so that the court acquired no jurisdiction over his person, and that it would be impractical for him to deposit with the clerk of court in Pasig, Rizal 450 cavans of palay all the way from Candaba, Pampanga.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari may be entertained when the petitioner came directly to the Supreme Court without first asking the trial court to reconsider the order complained of.
• Whether or not the motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants in the partition case, who intervened in this case, may substitute for the motion for reconsideration that the petitioner himself ought to have filed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the requirement for certiorari under the old rules, which the Court states as follows:

Certiorari, as a special civil action, will lie only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

This is the gatekeeping requirement the petition failed to satisfy, because the remedy of a motion for reconsideration in the trial court was available to the petitioner.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the omission is fatal. Certiorari lies only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. When an adequate relief is available in the court of origin, it is of necessity that such relief be availed of; otherwise, the writ will not issue. The remedy of the petitioner was to make a special appearance in the trial court and move for the reconsideration of the order in question. The purpose is to give such court a chance to correct any error, if there be any, without involving the parties in another litigation. Questions which Courts of First Instance are required by law to decide should not summarily be taken away from them and presented to the Supreme Court without first giving them an opportunity of deliberately passing on such questions themselves.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the defendants' motion for reconsideration, they being intervenors in this case, could cure the defect. The Court held that such motion cannot take the place of the motion for reconsideration which ought to have been filed by the petitioner himself.

Doctrine

Certiorari as a special civil action is available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A party who has an adequate remedy in the court of origin must first avail of it; the writ will not issue otherwise.

A person who is not a party to a case but is reached by an order therein must make a special appearance in that court and move for reconsideration of the order, so that the court may be given the chance to correct any error without another litigation. A motion for reconsideration filed by the actual parties or intervenors does not take the place of the motion that the stranger himself ought to have filed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, dissolved the preliminary injunction it had issued, and imposed costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the line: certiorari lies only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and a stranger to a case must first seek reconsideration in the court of origin by special appearance. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of certiorari and the procedural remedy of a non-party who is affected by an order in a pending action.