ACAY BALBALIO, ET AL., PETITIONERS VS. HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SPOUSES IGNACIO B. GALABAN AND MAGDALENA BAUTISTA, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Acay Balbalio versus Heirs of the Deceased Spouses Galaban

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought directly before the Supreme Court by Acay Balbalio and his co-plaintiff against the Heirs of the deceased spouses Ignacio B. Galaban and Magdalena Bautista. The petitioners sought to annul two orders of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan which had given due course to the respondents' appeal despite an alleged defect in the perfection of that appeal. The case matters because it teaches the bar candidate a precise lesson on the extraordinary writ of certiorari: where the Rules of Court afford a party a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, that remedy must be exhausted, and certiorari will not lie.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered judgment on November 28, 1962, in favor of Acay Balbalio and his co-plaintiff. The respondents, the Heirs of the deceased spouses Galaban and Bautista, filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal on January 3, 1963, and an appeal bond on January 4, 1963. The petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was filed one day after the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal. The trial court denied the motion on March 14, 1963, gave due course to the appeal, and ordered the records forwarded to the appellate court. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 21, 1963. The petitioners then filed this special civil action for certiorari, originally in the Supreme Court, to assail those orders.

Facts

The petitioners won a judgment in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The respondents, the Heirs of the deceased spouses Galaban and Bautista, decided to appeal. They filed their notice of appeal and record on appeal on January 3, 1963, and their appeal bond on January 4, 1963.

The petitioners seized on the timing. They moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the appeal bond was filed one day after the reglementary period to appeal had lapsed. The respondents opposed the motion.

The trial court denied the motion, gave due course to the appeal, and ordered the records sent to the appellate court. It likewise denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Rather than wait for the appellate court, the petitioners went straight to the Supreme Court on certiorari, claiming they had no plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners had a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, such that certiorari would not lie.
• Whether or not the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss the appeal precluded the movants from renewing that motion in the appellate court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, then Section 1 of Rule 67, provides:

When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, 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, as the law requires, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This provision is the very ground of the petition, and its requirement of no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is the point on which the case turns.

Section 1 of Rule 50, then Section 1 of Rule 52, provides:

An appeal may be dismissed by the appellate court, upon motion of the appellee, on the following grounds: (a) failure of the appellant to file the notice of appeal or the record on appeal within the period prescribed by these rules; (b) failure of the appellant to file the appeal bond within the period prescribed by these rules.

This provision supplies the very remedy the Court found available to the petitioners in the appellate court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners did have a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. As appellees, they could file a motion to dismiss in the appellate court on the ground of the appellants' failure to file the appeal bond within the prescribed time, citing Section 1 of Rule 50. Because such a remedy existed, the petitioners could not avail themselves of certiorari.

On the second issue, the Court held that the prior denial of the motion to dismiss by the trial court did not preclude the movants from renewing or reiterating that motion in the appellate court. The Court explained that a motion to dismiss the appeal, filed by the appellee with the appellate court, has the effect of an appeal from the order of the trial court denying his motion. The appellate court may deny the motion, thereby ratifying the trial court's order, or grant it, reversing the action below, if it appears that the appeal was not perfected within the prescribed time.

Doctrine

Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, and it will not issue where the Rules of Court afford the petitioner a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. An appellee who claims that the appeal was not perfected in time must move to dismiss the appeal in the appellate court under Section 1 of Rule 50; that motion is the ordinary remedy, and it operates as an appeal from the trial court's order denying dismissal. The denial of such a motion by the trial court does not bar its renewal before the appellate court, which may either ratify or reverse the action below.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was denied, without costs, because the petitioners had a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Remember This

Memorize this line: where the Rules give the appellee a motion to dismiss the appeal in the appellate court, certiorari will not lie, and the denial of that motion below does not bar its renewal on appeal. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of certiorari, particularly the requirement of no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and the proper remedy of an appellee against a defective appeal.