ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P. OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO, AND JUDITH OBRERO-TIMBRESA, RESPONDENTS.

Abadilla versus Obrero

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Rolando Abadilla, Junior against the spouses Bonifacio and Bernabela Obrero and Judith Obrero-Timbresa. The respondents had sued Abadilla for injunction and damages after he forcibly entered a beachfront property they claim as theirs, blocked the apartelle, and demolished structures. The trial court dismissed their complaint with prejudice on the ground of forum-shopping, but the Court of Appeals annulled that dismissal through a petition for certiorari. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to teach a hard procedural lesson: a dismissal with prejudice is a final order that must be appealed by notice of appeal, and certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.

Procedural History

The respondents first filed a complaint for ejectment, that is, forcible entry, with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Laoag City, together with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction. That application was later deemed abandoned. The respondents then filed a separate complaint for injunction and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 14. The trial court dismissed that complaint with prejudice on the ground of forum-shopping, and denied the motion for reconsideration. Instead of filing a notice of appeal, the respondents went up to the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, annulled the trial court's orders, and held that there was no forum-shopping because the injunction case rested on the demolition and the damages, not on recovery of possession. It also relaxed the rules on the proper remedy. Abadilla's motion for reconsideration was denied, so he came to the Supreme Court by this petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The subject of the controversy is a beachfront property of about 7,899 square meters in Calayab, Laoag City. The respondents, together with Airways Development Corporation, were declared registered owners and issued a certificate of title in 1999. After a partition action and related cases, the property was titled in the respondents' names, and they built cottages and other structures on it.

On September 22, 2007, Abadilla, claiming that the property was part of a thirteen-hectare land previously sold to his father, forcibly entered with armed men. His men blocked the way to the apartelle and demolished the other structures. The respondents filed an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, but their application for a writ of preliminary injunction there was deemed abandoned.

On July 18, 2008, the respondents filed a separate complaint for injunction and damages before the Regional Trial Court, asking that Abadilla be enjoined from inflicting further damage and that damages be awarded. Abadilla answered that the respondents were guilty of forum-shopping, since they sought the same reliefs from both courts arising from the same facts. The respondents denied this, saying the ejectment case was to show their prior possession, while the injunction case was to prevent further damage to their persons and property.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari, notwithstanding that the proper remedy to assail the order dismissing the complaint for injunction and damages was an ordinary appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.

This is the final judgment rule, and it fixes the remedy: a dismissal with prejudice completely disposes of the case, so it must be appealed.

The same Section 1 also provides:

No appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order.

This confirms that the dismissal here is not interlocutory, because it terminated the proceedings and left nothing more for the lower court to do.

Ruling

The Court ruled that the petition is meritorious. An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final order. It is not interlocutory because the proceedings are terminated and it leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. Being final, it is appealable under the final judgment rule. The respondents' remedy from the orders dismissing the injunction case with prejudice was therefore an ordinary appeal, perfected by filing a notice of appeal within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.

The records showed that the respondents received a copy of the order denying their motion for reconsideration on August 31, 2010, so they had until September 15, 2010 to file a notice of appeal. Instead, they filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on October 30, 2010, well beyond the reglementary period. Given the improper remedy, the order of dismissal became final and immutable and can no longer be altered or modified. The Court stressed that the only exceptions to the rule on immutability of final judgments are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and void judgments, none of which obtain here. It also held that procedural rules are not mere technicalities to be ignored at will, since adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice.

The Court noted, however, that the ejectment case had already been resolved in a prior decision upholding the respondents' right of possession on the strength of the title in their names. They were therefore justified in committing acts of possession over the property, to the exclusion of Abadilla, notwithstanding the dismissal of the injunction case on a technicality.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, an order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final order, not an interlocutory one, because it terminates the proceedings and leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. Second, under the final judgment rule in Section 1 of Rule 41, a final order that completely disposes of the case is appealable by ordinary appeal, perfected through a notice of appeal within fifteen days from notice. Third, certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal; when the reglementary period lapses, the dismissal becomes final and immutable. Fourth, the doctrine of immutability of judgments admits only three exceptions: correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, and void judgments. Finally, procedural rules may not be brushed aside as mere technicalities, for adjective law secures the orderly and speedy administration of justice.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals decision and resolution were reversed and set aside, and the trial court orders dismissing the injunction case, which had long attained finality, were reinstated.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a final order, and the remedy is an ordinary appeal, not certiorari. Examiners use this case to test the final judgment rule, the fifteen-day period to appeal, and the immutability of final judgments with its three narrow exceptions.