GR 178031; (August, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178031 ; August 28, 2013
VIRGINIA M. VENZON, Petitioner, vs. RURAL BANK OF BUENAVISTA (AGUSAN DEL NORTE), INC., represented by LOURDESITA E. PARAJES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Virginia Venzon sought to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure of her property by respondent Rural Bank, alleging irregularities. She claimed the 1987 foreclosure was void for lack of notice, publication, and a sheriff’s final deed of sale. She further asserted she had attempted to pay the loan balance in 1987 and made a ₱6,000 payment in 1995. Respondent Bank countered that the foreclosure was regular and that petitioner’s action, filed in 2005, was barred by prescription and laches.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case. It ruled that under the Rural Banks Act, publication of the foreclosure sale was not required for loans not exceeding ₱10,000, which covered petitioner’s obligation. The court also held that lack of personal notice or a notice of redemption period did not render the sale null and void.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy and for procedural deficiencies.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The RTC’s Resolution dismissing the case was a final order, against which the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Petitioner received the order denying her motion for reconsideration on September 18, 2006, and had until October 3, 2006, to appeal. By filing a Petition for Certiorari on October 25, 2006, she availed herself of the wrong remedy. The CA cannot treat the petition as a belated appeal, as the right to appeal is not a natural right and must be exercised in accordance with the law.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s finding that the original petition failed to comply with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, as it did not provide a sufficient factual background of the case. While procedural rules may be relaxed for substantive justice, this is not an absolute rule and requires a compelling reason, such as a clear showing of a miscarriage of justice. Petitioner failed to demonstrate such a compelling reason. Her substantive claim that no foreclosure occurred based on a certification that records “could not be found” was insufficient to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to the sheriff’s affidavit of posting, which was presented by the respondent Bank. The dismissal by the CA was therefore proper.