NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. THE MUNICIPALITY OF LIBMANAN, AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH FIVE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, R…

National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority versus Municipality of Libmanan

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus brought before the Supreme Court by the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority against the Municipality of Libmanan and the Presiding Judge of Branch Five of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The Authority asks the Court to stop the trial court from executing its judgment in a recovery of property case, and to compel that court to approve the record on appeal it had filed. The case matters far less for the merits of the land dispute than for a hard procedural lesson: a petition that rests on documents it never bothers to attach is a petition the Supreme Court will not entertain.

Procedural History

The Municipality of Libmanan sued the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for recovery of property with damages, docketed as Civil Case Number L-161. The trial court, through its Presiding Judge of Branch Five, rendered a decision in that case on the tenth of December, 1965. The Authority sought reconsideration of the order of default entered against it, and then filed a record on appeal, later an amended record on appeal, in an effort to bring the judgment up on appeal. When the trial court did not act as the Authority wished, the Authority came directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and mandamus, praying that the respondent court be enjoined from executing its decision and be commanded to approve the original or the amended record on appeal.

Facts

The Municipality of Libmanan filed a complaint against the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority for recovery of property with damages. That complaint became Civil Case Number L-161 in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The trial court, sitting through Branch Five, rendered its decision in the case on the tenth of December, 1965.

In the course of those proceedings the trial court entered an order of default against the Authority, and the Authority moved for reconsideration of that order. The Authority then prepared a record on appeal, and later an amended record on appeal, seeking to elevate the judgment for review.

Dissatisfied with the course of events below, the Authority filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and mandamus. It prayed that the respondent court be enjoined from executing its decision in Civil Case Number L-161, and that a writ of certiorari issue commanding the respondent court to approve the original record on appeal, or the amended one, the Authority maintaining that the original was perfected within the reglementary period and that the delay in the amended record was beyond its control. The petition, however, attached none of the documents on which it relied: no copy of the complaint, no copy of the decision of the tenth of December, 1965, no copy of the order of default, and no copy of either record on appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari and mandamus may be entertained when the pleadings and orders it relies upon, namely the complaint, the decision, the order of default, and the records on appeal, are not attached to it.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may enjoin the execution of the judgment of the trial court and command it to approve the record on appeal on the basis of a petition that does not show the records sought to be approved.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statute or rule. It rests on the elementary requirement that a petition for certiorari and mandamus must be accompanied by the records and pleadings essential to evaluate the relief prayed for. The Court's reasoning is captured in its own words:

Bearing in mind that the petition under consideration, was filed for the purpose of enjoining the respondent court from executing the decision rendered in Civil Case No. L-161, the importance of the missing pleadings is obvious.

That sentence is the whole of the Court's standard here: the missing annexes are not a technicality but the very foundation of the relief sought.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition could not be entertained. It noted, one by one, the documents that were absent. Paragraph three of the petition spoke of the complaint for recovery of property with damages, yet no copy was attached. Paragraph four mentioned the decision of the tenth of December, 1965, yet no copy was attached. Paragraph five spoke of the order of default and of the motion for reconsideration, yet no copy of the order of default was attached.

On the second issue, the Court held that the same defect defeated the prayer to compel approval of the record on appeal. The petition sought an order commanding the respondent court to approve either the original or the amended record on appeal, but no copy of either was attached. The Court put the point plainly:

Moreover, the petition is also for the purpose of securing an order commanding the respondent court to approve either the original or the amended record on appeal filed by petitioner, but no copy of either is attached to its petition.

Because the relief prayed for could not be evaluated without the very documents withheld from the Court, the petition was dismissed.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari and mandamus that asks the Supreme Court to restrain execution of a judgment and to compel approval of a record on appeal must be accompanied by the pleadings, orders, decision, and records on appeal on which it depends. Their absence is fatal, because the Court cannot weigh the importance of what it has not seen. The rule a Bar candidate should carry into the examination room is this: the annexes are not decoration; they are the case. A petition that omits the decision it attacks and the record it wants approved has, in substance, stated no case at all.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice and the other Justices.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the importance of the missing pleadings is obvious: a certiorari and mandamus petition without its supporting records is dismissed outright. Examiners use this case to test the completeness of special civil actions, especially where a party attacks a judgment while withholding the judgment itself.