Case Digest (G.R. No. 200104)
Facts:
The case involves Iluminada C. Bernardo (petitioner) and Ana Marie B. Soriano (respondent). The events leading to the case began when Bernardo filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus on October 23, 2009, seeking the release of her minor granddaughter, Stephanie Verniese B. Soriano, from the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in Mandaluyong City. Bernardo claimed that the DSWD was unlawfully restraining Stephanie's liberty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 209, converted the habeas corpus petition into a custody case after determining that Bernardo had not proven the illegality of the DSWD's custody. Soriano, the surviving parent of Stephanie, intervened by filing a Complaint-in-Intervention to assert her right to custody.
On August 5, 2010, the RTC ruled in favor of Soriano, affirming her parental rights but temporarily granting custody to Bernardo for the school year 2009-2010. Following this, Bernardo filed a M...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 200104)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- Petitioner Iluminada C. Bernardo (Bernardo) filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus to produce her minor granddaughter, Stephanie Verniese B. Soriano (Stephanie), who was under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Bernardo alleged that Stephanie was being deprived of her liberty and that the DSWD refused to release her despite demands.
Conversion to Custody Case
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 209, converted the habeas corpus petition into a custody case after Bernardo failed to prove that the DSWD's custody was illegal.
Intervention by Soriano
- Respondent Ana Marie B. Soriano (Soriano), Stephanie’s mother, filed a Complaint-in-Intervention, seeking custody of her child. This led to a legal battle between Bernardo and Soriano over Stephanie’s custody.
RTC’s Initial Ruling
- The RTC, in its Decision dated August 5, 2010, upheld Soriano’s right to parental custody but ruled that it was in Stephanie’s best interest to temporarily stay with Bernardo for the school year 2009-2010.
Motion for Reconsideration
- Bernardo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging that Soriano was unfit to care for Stephanie. The RTC denied this motion on August 31, 2010.
Soriano’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration
- On the same day, Soriano filed a Comment (With Motion for Partial Reconsideration), seeking immediate custody of Stephanie. The RTC granted this motion on October 22, 2010, allowing Soriano to take immediate custody of Stephanie.
Bernardo’s Appeal
- Bernardo filed a Notice of Appeal on September 8, 2010, but the RTC denied it on September 9, 2010, citing that the Decision had not yet attained finality due to Soriano’s pending Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
Certiorari Petition
- Bernardo filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, challenging the RTC’s Orders denying her Notice of Appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the petition, prompting Bernardo to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Finality of Judgment: A final judgment disposes of the entire subject matter of the case and is appealable. The RTC’s Decision dated August 5, 2010, was a final judgment because it resolved the custody issue on the merits.
- Right to Appeal: Each party has an independent right to appeal. The timely filing of a motion for reconsideration by one party does not interrupt the other party’s period to appeal.
- Certiorari as an Extraordinary Remedy: Certiorari under Rule 65 is only available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Bernardo could have filed another Notice of Appeal after the RTC modified its Decision, making certiorari inappropriate.
- No Grave Abuse of Discretion: The RTC’s denial of Bernardo’s Notice of Appeal, while erroneous, was not arbitrary or capricious. The RTC acted out of practicality to avoid multiple appeals.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that Bernardo had an adequate remedy through an ordinary appeal. The RTC’s procedural error did not amount to grave abuse of discretion, and certiorari was not the proper remedy.