Madrigal Vs Lapanday

MADRIGAL TRANSPORT, INC., petitioner, vs.
LAPANDAY HOLDINGS
CORPORATION; MACONDRAY AND COMPANY, INC., and LUIS P. LORENZO
JR., respondents
G.R. No. 156067
August 11, 2004
The special civil action for certiorari and appeal are two different remedies that are
mutually exclusive; they are not alternative or successive. Where appeal is
available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of
discretion. Basic is the rule that certiorari is NOT a substitute for the lapsed remedy of
appeal.|||
1. Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February 28, 2002
Decision and the November 5, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
2. The challenged Decision disposed as follows:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
"WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, private respondents Lapanday and

Lorenzo, Jr.'s Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 February 2000 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the
Resolution dated 10 January 2000 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE, thereby dismissing the
Petition for Certiorari dated 10 September 1999."
On February 9, 1998, Petitioner Madrigal Transport, Inc. ("Madrigal") filed a Petition for Voluntary
Insolvency before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 49.
Subsequently, on February 21, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for damages against
Respondents Lapanday Holdings Corporation ("Lapanday"), Macondray and Company, Inc.
("Macondray"), and Luis P.
Lorenzo Jr. before the RTC of Manila, Branch 36.
Madrigal alleged (1) that it had entered into a joint venture agreement with Lapanday for the
primary purpose of operating vessels to service the shipping requirements of Del Monte
Philippines, Inc.
that it had done so on the strength of the representations of Lorenzo, in his capacity either as
chairman of the board or as president of Del Monte, Lapanday and Macondray;
that Macondray had thereafter been appointed allegedly upon the insistence of Lapanday as
broker, for the purpose of securing charter hire contracts from Del Monte;
that pursuant to the joint venture agreement, Madrigal had purchased a vessel by obtaining a
P10,000,000 bank loan;
and that contrary to their representations and guarantees and despite demands, Lapanday and
Lorenzo had allegedly been unable to deliver those Del Monte charter hire contracts.
On February 23, 1998, the insolvency court (RTC Branch 49) declared Madrigal Transport Inc.
insolvent.
On March 30, 1998 and April 6, 1998, Respondents Lapanday, Lorenzo and Macondray filed their
respective Motions to Dismiss the case pending before the RTC Branch 36.
12. On December 16, 1998, Branch 36 granted the Motion, for failure of the Complaint to state a cause
of action.
13. Applying Sections 32 and 33 of the Insolvency Law, the trial court opined that upon the filing by
Madrigal of a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency, the latter lost the right to institute the Complaint for
Damages.
14. The RTC ruled that the exclusive right to prosecute the actions belonged to the court-appointed
assignee.
15. On January 26, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was later denied on July
26, 1999.
16. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to set aside
the December 16, 1998 and the July 26, 1999 Orders of the trial court.
17. On September 29, 1999, the CA issued a Resolution requiring petitioner to explain why its Petition
should not be dismissed outright, on the ground that the questioned Orders should have been
elevated by ordinary appeal.
18. On January 10, 2000, the appellate court ruled that since the main issue in the instant case was
purely legal, the Petition could be treated as one for review as an exception to the general rule
that certiorari was not proper when appeal was available.
19. Respondents Lapanday and Lorenzo challenged this ruling through a Motion for Reconsideration
dated February 10, 2000.
20. The CA heard the Motion for Reconsideration in oral arguments.
21. On February 28, 2002, the appellate court issued the assailed Decision granting Respondents
Lapanday and Lorenzo's Motion for Reconsideration and dismissing Madrigal's Petition for
Certiorari. The CA opined that an order granting a motion to dismiss was final and thus the proper
subject of an appeal, not certiorari.
22. Furthermore, even if the Petition could be treated as an appeal, it would still have to be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction, according to the CA. The appellate court held that the issues raised by
petitioner involved pure questions of law that should be brought to the Supreme Court, pursuant to
Section 2 of Rule 50 and Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
23. Duly, Madrigal Transport filed a petition.
ISSUE:
1. Did the CA err by ruling that the order of the lower court which granted private respondents' Motions
to Dismiss are not proper subjects of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
2. Did the CA err in ruling that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition for Certiorari filed by
petitioner before it?
HELD: NO to both issues.
First issue: Between an appeal and a petition for certiorari, there are substantial distinctions which shall
be explained below.
a. As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction,
not errors of judgment.
b. As to the Manner of Filing. Over an appeal, the CA exercises its appellate jurisdiction and
power of review. Over a certiorari, the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance
with its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of lower courts. An appeal is
thus a continuation of the original suit, while a petition forcertiorari is an original and
independent action that was not part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition of the
judgment or order complained of. The parties to an appeal are the original parties to the
action. In contrast, the parties to a petition for certiorari are the aggrieved party (who thereby
becomes the petitioner) against the lower court or quasi-judicial agency, and the prevailing
parties (the public and the private respondents, respectively).
c. As to the Subject Matter. Only judgments or final orders and those that the Rules of Court so
declare are appealable. Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be
directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment;
or where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
d. As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary appeals should be filed within fifteen days from the notice of
judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant
must file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty days from the said notice of
judgment or final order. A petition for review should be filed and served within fifteen days from
the notice of denial of the decision, or of the petitioner's timely filed motion for new trial or
motion for reconsideration. In an appeal by certiorari, the petition should be filed also within
fifteen days from the notice of judgment or final order, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion
for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
e. On the other hand, a petition for certiorari should be filed not later than sixty days from the
notice of judgment, order, or resolution. If a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration
was timely filed, the period shall be counted from the denial of the motion.
f. As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is generally
required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity
to correct the alleged errors. Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate remedy
expressly available under the law. Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment or
final order.
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 one's own
negligence or error in one's 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.
Second issue: Petitioner was ascribing errors of judgment, not jurisdiction, in its Petition for Certiorari filed
with the Court of Appeals. The issue raised there was the trial court's alleged error in dismissing the
Complaint for lack of cause of action. Petitioner argues that it could still institute the Complaint, even if it
had filed a Petition for Insolvency earlier. As petitioner was challenging the trial court's interpretation of the
law posing a question of law the issue involved an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction. An error of
judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction is not necessarily equivalent to
"grave abuse of discretion."

Madrigal Vs Lapanday

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madrigal Vs Lapanday

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madrigal Vs Lapanday

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MADRIGAL TRANSPORT, INC., petitioner, vs.

"WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, private respondents Lapanday and

You might also like