G.R. No. L-69550 November 24, 1988
MARIA LUISA O. COJUANGCO, and LEO J. PALMA, petitioners, vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH XXVII, PASAY CITY AND SPOUSES EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., AND SOLEDAD O. COJUANGCO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the spouses Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and Soledad O. Cojuangco, together with their daughter Maria Luisa O. Cojuangco, filed an action for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between Maria Luisa and Leo J. Palma. The complaint alleged that Palma, a married man with a subsisting marriage and three children, contracted a second marriage with Maria Luisa in Hong Kong by falsely representing himself as a bachelor. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P. In a related prior case, G.R. No. 64538 , the Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated December 21, 1983, set aside a default judgment against Palma and remanded the case to the trial court. The Court ordered respondent Judge to conduct a new trial and allowed Palma to file his answer within ten days from the finality of that Resolution.
Upon remand, instead of filing an answer as directed by the Supreme Court, Palma moved for the dismissal of the case. The trial court initially granted the motion to dismiss on July 19, 1984. However, upon reconsideration, the trial court, in an Order dated August 17, 1984, reinstated the case, citing its duty to obey the Supreme Court’s directive for a new trial. The court again granted Palma a period to file his answer. Palma’s joint motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated December 10, 1984. Aggrieved, petitioners Maria Luisa Cojuangco and Leo Palma filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the orders reinstating the case and to prohibit the respondent Judge from proceeding.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders dated August 17, 1984 and December 10, 1984, which reinstated Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P and denied the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion; on the contrary, his actions were in strict obedience to the final and executory Resolution of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 64538 . That Resolution explicitly ordered the conduct of a new trial and directed Palma to file his answer. By moving for dismissal instead of complying, Palma disobeyed a direct order of the Supreme Court. The trial court’s duty was to implement the High Court’s mandate, and its reinstatement of the case was a correct and ministerial act to effectuate that mandate.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not subject to a petition for certiorari. Such a petition is appropriate only when the trial court acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available. Here, no such abuse existed. Any error in the interlocutory orders could be corrected in a timely appeal from a final judgment. The respondent Judge was merely exercising his jurisdiction as directed, and his orders were in accordance with law. Thus, the petition was dismissed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.