G.R. No. 146818 - Jan-Dec Construction Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Jan-Dec Construction Corporation (petitioner) filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 276, Muntinlupa City on December 17, 1999, against Metro-South Intermodal Transport Terminal Corporation (Intermodal) and Food Terminal, Inc. (respondent) for "Sum of Money and Enforcement of Contractor Lien."
The complaint alleged that:

Respondent leased a portion of its property at DPB Avenue, FTI Compound, Taguig City to Intermodal for operating a bus terminal.
Intermodal contracted with petitioner for constructing a bus terminal at an agreed price, which included a 10% downpayment and balance in eleven equal monthly installments.
Despite petitioner’s full performance (including accommodating change orders), Intermodal paid only a fraction of the contract price, thus defaulting on its obligation.
Petitioner claimed that respondent, by executing a takeover of the bus terminal, should assume Intermodal’s unpaid obligations based on a preferential contractor's lien under Article 2242, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Civil Code.

On January 26, 2000, Intermodal filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-Claim, contending that:

Petitioner had no proper cause of action against Intermodal due to non-compliance with the contractual obligations.
The respondent should be solely responsible since it failed in its lease obligations by not delivering the promised 5-hectare terminal site and road access.

It was not a party to the construction contract between petitioner and Intermodal.
Therefore, no cause of action could be properly stated against it.

The RTC, on March 24, 2000, issued an Order dismissing the complaint against respondent on the grounds that:

Even without a direct contractual relationship, a quasi-contract existed under Article 1312 of the Civil Code.
Respondent should be duty-bound to respect the creditor’s lien under Article 2242, paragraph 3.

On August 3, 2000, filing a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion for dismissing its petition and wrong remedy being used.
On August 11, 2000, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari, holding that under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal was the appropriate remedy.
Later, on August 30, 2000, petitioner filed another Motion for Reconsideration with the CA, which was denied on December 20, 2000.

On February 12, 2001, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising two main grounds:

The CA abused its discretion by holding that appeal under Rule 41 was the proper remedy, not certiorari under Rule 65, when only the complaint against respondent was dismissed while the case against another defendant was still pending.
The CA further abused its discretion by not voiding the RTC’s alleged erroneous dismissal of the complaint against respondent.

Whether an appeal under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the proper remedy from a final order dismissing the complaint against only one of the several defendants, thereby precluding the use of a petition for certiorari.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion by dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari on procedural grounds.
Whether respondent could be held liable under the contractor’s lien provisions (Articles 2242, paragraphs 3 and 4, and, by extension, Article 1312) despite not being a party to the construction agreement.
Whether petitioner’s failure to file an appeal within the prescribed period and instead resorting to a special civil action for certiorari constitutes a manifest procedural error justifying dismissal.