G.R. No. 179257 , November 23, 2015
UNITED ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK [UCPB] AND/OR PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [PDIC], JAKOB VAN DER SLUIS AND ROBERT T. CHUA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner United Alloy Philippines Corporation (UniAlloy) and respondent United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) entered into a Lease Purchase Agreement (LPA) on September 10, 1999, for a three-year lease of properties in Misamis Oriental, with an option to purchase. UniAlloy also obtained loans from UCPB. On August 27, 2001, UniAlloy filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or Reformation of Contract and Damages with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Cagayan de Oro City. UniAlloy alleged that respondent Jakob Van Der Sluis took control of its management through misrepresentation, that respondents connived to obtain fictitious loans, and that UCPB unilaterally rescinded the LPA. It prayed for the annulment of promissory notes, nullification of the LPA rescission, an injunction against UCPB taking possession of the leased premises, and damages. The Executive Judge issued a 72-hour TRO. Respondents filed Motions to Dismiss on grounds of improper venue (as the Credit Agreement and LPA stipulated exclusive venue in Makati City), forum-shopping (for failing to disclose pending related cases), and for being a harassment suit under the Interim Rules for Intra-Corporate Cases. On September 13, 2001, the RTC granted the motions and dismissed the case on grounds of improper venue and forum-shopping, ordering UniAlloy to turn over possession of the premises to UCPB. A Writ of Execution was issued and satisfied on September 17, 2001, evicting UniAlloy. UniAlloy filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), Manila Station. The CA Manila issued a Resolution on February 18, 2002, granting a writ of preliminary injunction upon bond. However, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 152238 (a petition by UCPB), issued a Resolution on March 18, 2002, restraining the CA Manila from enforcing its injunction. The Supreme Court later denied UCPB’s petition in G.R. No. 152238 on January 28, 2005. The records were transferred to the CA Cagayan de Oro (CA CDO). UniAlloy filed a Motion to Issue and Implement Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. The CA CDO denied the motion, finding UniAlloy had lost its right to possess the premises due to default and prior vacatur, and that the RTC’s dismissal order had become final due to UniAlloy’s failure to timely appeal. The CA CDO subsequently issued its assailed Decision on August 17, 2007, denying UniAlloy’s petition, affirming the RTC’s Orders, and ruling that certiorari was improper as the RTC’s order had become final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals (Cagayan de Oro City) erred in denying UniAlloy’s Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and affirming the RTC’s dismissal of the Complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA CDO Decision. The Court held that the RTC’s dismissal order based on improper venue and forum-shopping had become final and executory due to UniAlloy’s failure to timely appeal. A final and executory order can no longer be disturbed. The Court found that UniAlloy resorted to certiorari under Rule 65 as a substitute for a lost appeal, which is impermissible. Certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment but for jurisdictional errors. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; it acted within its jurisdiction in dismissing the case on the grounds stated. The Court also ruled that the dismissal of the main action carried with it the denial of all ancillary reliefs, including the prayer for a preliminary injunction. Since the principal action was dismissed, the ancillary remedy of injunction could no longer stand. The Court further noted that UniAlloy had already vacated the premises, making the injunction moot. The CA CDO did not disregard the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 152238 , as that decision only resolved the propriety of the CA Manila’s injunction resolution and did not rule on the merits of the main case or the finality of the RTC’s dismissal order.