MRA REALTY CORPORATION, MILAGROS A. DIVINO AND MANUEL M. AQUINO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU CITY, BRANCH 21, NOW PRESIDED BY THE HON. ERIC F. MENCHAVEZ, M…

MRA Realty versus Regional Trial Court of Cebu City

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by MRA Realty Corporation, Milagros A. Divino, and Manuel M. Aquino against the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 21, and the heirs of their late brother Marcelo M. Aquino, Junior. The petitioners were cited for indirect contempt for repeatedly refusing to obey the trial court's orders in the execution of a final judgment that had settled a family feud over inheritance. The case matters because it teaches the correct remedy for a party adjudged in indirect contempt, and because it restates the iron rule that a final judgment can no longer be touched.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 21, rendered a decision on December 27, 2006 in favor of Marcelo M. Aquino, Junior. It declared certain deeds of sale null and void from the beginning, ordered the cancellation of the transfer certificates of title and tax declarations in the name of MRA Realty Corporation, and directed an accounting and equal sharing of income, with equal shares in the corporation's stocks should partition no longer be possible.

The petitioners filed a notice of appeal, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief. The Supreme Court denied their petition for review on certiorari, and later denied their motion for reconsideration. The judgment thus became final and executory.

The petitioners then filed an omnibus motion for clarification before the trial court, which was denied, as was their motion for reconsideration. They next filed a petition for annulment of final judgment and orders with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it because annulment is available only where the petitioner is not at fault. Meanwhile, the trial court granted a motion for execution and issued a writ of execution. After the sheriff served a notice of compliance, the petitioners moved to quash, and the private respondent moved to cite them in contempt. The trial court gave them time to comply, then found them guilty of indirect contempt and fined each of them thirty thousand pesos. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. Instead of appealing, they filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Marcelo M. Aquino, Junior, and the petitioners Milagros A. Divino and Manuel M. Aquino are siblings, the children of the late spouses Marcelo R. Aquino, Senior, and Victoria M. Aquino. When the private respondent married in 1958, the family disapproved, and he never again visited the ancestral house. His father died intestate in June 1978. When he asked his sister Milagros to settle and partition the estate, she told him this would be discussed only after their mother's death.

Their mother died in October 1998. When the private respondent again inquired about partition, he learned that some properties had already been sold and others transferred to MRA Realty Corporation long before their father's death. He investigated and concluded that the properties were being hidden from him so that he could inherit nothing. The petitioners denied the allegations and insisted that the corporation was legitimately formed and all the transactions were valid.

The trial court ruled for the private respondent in December 2006. The petitioners lost their appeal, and the judgment became final. Yet they filed one motion after another, questioning the decision and the orders implementing it, and refused to submit the required accounting. The trial court warned them repeatedly, extended its leniency, and finally cited them for indirect contempt, imposing a fine of thirty thousand pesos each.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge a judgment or final order in an indirect contempt proceeding.
• Whether or not the petitioners may still be cited for indirect contempt based on an order they claim is unlawful and a decision they claim is null and void.
• Whether or not the trial court's order of February 4, 2013 altered or modified the final decision of December 27, 2006.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 11. Review of judgment or final order; bond for stay. The judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in criminal cases. But execution of the judgment or final order shall not be suspended until a bond is filed by the person adjudged in contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from which the appeal is taken, conditioned that if the appeal be decided against him he will abide by and perform the judgment or final order.

This provision fixes the remedy: an appeal taken as in criminal cases, with a bond for the suspension of execution, and not a petition for certiorari.

Section 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Modes of appeal. (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

Because an indirect contempt appeal partakes of a criminal case, this ordinary appeal is the mode the petitioners should have used.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be dismissed outright because the petitioners availed the wrong mode of appeal. An appeal in an indirect contempt proceeding partakes of a criminal case, so the ordinary appeal under Rule 41 applies. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and posted no bond. The Court stressed that the right to appeal is statutory, and that perfecting an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Failure to perfect it renders the judgment final and executory.

On the second issue, the Court held that the assailed order had long become final and executory, and a court has no more jurisdiction to act on matters that have already attained finality. The petitioners' arguments that the decision was null and void and impossible to perform should have been raised on appeal, not in a collateral attack after finality.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the trial court's explanation that the order of February 4, 2013 merely accommodated the petitioners in complying with the accounting required by the December 27, 2006 decision. Nothing in the decision was altered or modified. The Court closed with the doctrine of finality:

Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.

Doctrine

• A judgment or final order in an indirect contempt proceeding is appealed as in criminal cases under Section 11 of Rule 71, by ordinary appeal under Rule 41 with a bond for the suspension of execution. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute.
• Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period fixed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to perfect it makes the judgment final and executory.
• Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, whether by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.
• Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, for the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal, leaving the contempt orders and the fines of thirty thousand pesos each in force.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a person adjudged in indirect contempt must appeal as in a criminal case under Rule 41 and post a bond, never file a petition for certiorari. Examiners use this case to test the proper remedy against a contempt order and the doctrine of finality of judgment.