Catly v Navarro

Facts:
Respondents Navarro, et. al. filed a Complaint against Las Pias Ventures, Inc., wassubstituted by Ayala
Land Inc. (ALI) because of merger, for annulment of TCT No. T-5332 andrecovery of possession with
damages. Respondents were represented by petitioner Atty. Catly, nowdeceased and substituted in this
case by his wife, Lourdes Catly.
Later on, Respondents Navarro, et.al., and ALI executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
expressing their desire toward anamicable settlement. Petitioner later on filed a Manifestation and
Motion alleging that should therebe an amicable settlement of the case, his attorneys fees should be
awarded in full as stipulation in the Contract for Legal and Other Valuable Services.
Hence, petitioner, respondents Navarro et. al.,and ALI executed an Amendatory Agreement
incorporating the provision that, in addition to the ten million attorneys fees as previously agreed upon,
petitioner would also be entitled to the amount of twenty million pesos as additional attorneys fees.
Records show that on December 13, 2004, the trial court rendered a Decision finding that petitioner can
execute judgment on the additional attorneys fees but only up to the extent of P1,000,000.00, not the
entire amount of P20,000,000.00 as prayed for in his petition. Petitioner received a copy of the assailed
decision on December 22, 2004. Petitioner moved for reconsideration on December 29, 2004, but the
same was denied in the trial courts Order dated March 1, 2005. Petitioner received a copy of the
challenged order on March 7, 2005. On March 17, 2005, instead of appealing the assailed decision and
order of the trial court to the Court of Appeals via a notice of appeal under Section 2(a) of Rule 41 of the
Rules, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari directly with this Court, stating that the trial
court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to an excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.
Issue: Whether the petitioner choose the proper remedy.
Held: No.
This is a procedural misstep. Although denominated as petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45,
petitioner, in questioning the decision and order of the trial court which were rendered in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction, should have taken the appeal to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the trial courts March 1, 2005 Order, i.e., within 15 days counted from March 7, 2005
(date of receipt of the appealed order), or until March 22, 2005, by filing a notice of appeal with the trial
court which rendered the decision and order appealed from and serving copies thereof upon the
adverse party pursuant to Sections 2(a) and 3 of Rule 41. Clearly, when petitioner sought to assail the
decision and order of the trial court, an appeal to the Court of Appeals was the adequate remedy which
he should have availed of, instead of filing a petition directly with this Court.
Even if the petition will be treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the same should be
dismissed. The Court declared that where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action for
certiorari will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal (including petitions for review) and certiorari are
mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive.
Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if ones own negligence or
error in ones choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that
there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal is available,
certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.
Further, the petition should be denied for violation of hierarchy of courts as prior recourse should have
been made to the Court of Appeals, instead of directly with this Court. A direct invocation of the Courts
original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari should be allowed only when there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is
a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are
better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent over-crowding of the
Courts docket.
Considering the merits of the present case, the Court sees the need to relax the iron clad policy of strict
observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts and, thus, takes cognizance over the case. The trial court,
in its Decisions dated December 1, 2004 and December 13, 2004 (per Presiding Judge Raul Bautista
Villanueva), erred in motu proprio modifying the Separate Judgment dated July 22, 1997 (per Presiding
Judge Florentino M. Alumbres) by reducing the entitlement of petitioners additional attorneys fees
from P20,000,000.00 to P1,000,000.00.