Case Digest (G.R. No. 111854)
Facts:
The case involves Barangay Blue Ridge "A" of Quezon City, represented by its Punong Barangay and Sangguniang Barangay, along with several individual residents and homeowners, including Eduardo Ochoa, Teresita Ochoa, Pacita Almario, Rafael Estrada, Sr., Alonso Ancheta, Dely Lagumbay, Rafael Estrada, Jr., Jaime M. Alfonso, Francis Ng, and Baby Lyn Godarzi. On March 2, 1992, the petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The petitioners contended that the construction of a gasoline filling service station by the private respondent violated certain barangay ordinances and resolutions. On March 20, 1992, Pilipinas Shell filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it failed to state a cause of action. The trial court granted this motion on January 6, 1993, and subsequently denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on June 3, 1993. Alleging grave a...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 111854)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
On March 2, 1992, the petitioners, Barangay Blue Ridge "A" of Quezon City and its residents, filed a complaint for injunction and damages against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The petitioners alleged that the construction of a gasoline station by Pilipinas Shell within their residential subdivision violated local barangay ordinances and resolutions.
Motion to Dismiss:
On March 20, 1992, Pilipinas Shell filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it failed to state a cause of action. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on January 6, 1993, and denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on June 3, 1993.
Petition for Certiorari:
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to annul the RTC's orders and alleging grave abuse of discretion by the presiding judge. They also requested the judge's inhibition due to perceived bias and hostility.
Court of Appeals’ Resolutions:
On July 26, 1993, the CA denied the petition, ruling that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The CA further denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on September 13, 1993, describing the petition as a "patay na kabayo" (dead horse).
Appeal to the Supreme Court:
The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, questioning the CA's denial of their petition.
Issue:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the petitioners' remedy should have been an ordinary appeal rather than a special civil action for certiorari.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)