GOMEZ-ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A

BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS • YU

VILLALON v. LIRIO (Cadiente) o Villalon filed MTD on the ground that Villalon was
[GR. No. 183869; August 3, 2015] not a real-party in interest.
“contract of lease” o This was granted by the RTC which ruled that the
allegations showed that the contract was between
Recit-Ready: Lirio and Semicon and did not include Villalon.
Facts: Lirio filed a complaint for sum of money against Villalon o Lirio filed MR – denied.
(president and chair of Semicon, with which he had a  Lirio filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 w/ the CA.
contract of lease). Villalon filed a motion to dismiss,  CA – nullified the RTC’s dismissal order and ruled that RTC
arguing that he was not proper interested party. RTC gravely abused its discretion in ignoring the fact that the
granted dismissal. Lirio then filed a Petition for case might possibly and properly call for the doctrine of
certiorari with the CA. CA reversed the dismissal. piercing the veil of corporate entity.
Villalon now appeals from such reversal arguing that o Also Villalon allegedly played a role in removing
the CA should not have taken cognizance of the Petition and transferring the merchandise, over which Lirio
for certiorari. had a preferred lien for the satisfaction of the
obligation under the lease contract.
Issue/s:  Villalon filed present appeal arguing that CA erred in
1) WON the petition for certiorari with the CA was the proper giving due course to Lirio’s petition for certiorari
remedy – NO. considering that appeal became available after the RTC
dismissed the complaint.
Held: A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is o Villalon asserts that an order granting a motion to
proper only when there is neither appeal, nor plain, dismiss is final and appealable. He argues that a
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
law. Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not Court prospers only when there is neither appeal,
prosper, even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion. nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
2) In this case, Lirio did nothing during the period ordinary course of law.
within which he should have filed an appeal.  Lirio on the other hand argues that:
o Lirio argues that certiorari is allowed even if
Facts: appeal is available where appeal does not
 Lirio and Semicon (represented by president and constitute a speedy and adequate remedy.
chairman, Villalon) entered into a contract of lease o Although Lirio agrees that he could have appealed
covering Lirio’s properties. the RTC's order dismissing the complaint against
 Semicon terminated the contract prior to expiration and Villalon, he contends that appeal was not speedy
allegedly left unpaid rentals. and adequate because the RTC gravely abused its
 Lirio filed a complaint for sum of money against Villalon. discretion when it whimsically and arbitrarily
 GOMEZ-ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A
BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS • YU
ignored existing doctrines on piercing the veil of
corporate fiction.
Issue/s:
1) WON the petition for certiorari to the CA was the proper
remedy
—NO
Held/Ratio: Petition GRANTED.
1) NO. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper
only when there is neither appeal, nor plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
a. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not a
substitute for a lost appeal; it is not allowed when
a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the
proper forum, especially if one's own negligence or
error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such
loss or lapse.
b. In Madrigal Transport v. Lapanday Holdings the
court held that Where an appeal is available,
certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground is
grave abuse of discretion.
c. In Cathay Pacific Steel Corp v. CA, the court held
that ven if, in the greater interest of substantial
justice, certiorari may be availed of, it must be
shown that the [lower court] acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The court must have exercised its
powers in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion or virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in
contemplation of law.
2) In this case, Lirio did nothing during the period within which
he should have filed an appeal. While he admits that he could
have appealed the dismissal to the CA, he insists that appeal
could not have been speedy and adequate because the RTC
gravely abused its discretion.
a. While it is true that liberal application of the rules
of procedure is allowed to avoid manifest failure or
miscarriage of justice, it is equally true that a
party invoking liberality must explain his failure to
abide by the rules.
b. Lirio failed to explain why he did not appeal the
dismissal order while admitting that he could have
done so. Rather, he clung to his argument that he
had correctly filed a petition for certiorari because
of the alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the RTC.
c. Indeed, if speed had been Lirio's concern, he
should have appealed within fifteen days from his
receipt of the final order denying his motion for
reconsideration, and not waited for two months
before taking action. Moreover, an appeal would
have adequately resolved his claim that the RTC
erred in dismissing his complaint against Villalon,
an order granting a motion to dismiss being final
and appealable.
3) Even if the court were to relax the rules of procedure and
allow the certiorari to substitute for the lost appeal, the Court
still granted Villalon’s appeal. A review of the allegations of
the complaint would show that RTC did not gravely abuse its
discretion when it dismissed the complaint.