Case Summary (G.R. No. 153653)
Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 16, 2002, and May 14, 2002, which dismissed their prior petition for certiorari. The case arose from a complaint filed by the petitioner against the City of Mandaluyong and A.F. Calma General Construction, seeking specific performance and damages based on a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding a housing project.
Allegations and Initial Proceedings
The petitioner alleged that the City failed to fulfill its obligations under the MOA, which entailed the construction of housing units for its members. The City defended itself by claiming that the MOA had been abrogated and that the petitioner lacked the standing to sue as they were not a party to the construction contract. The case saw the City submitting an answer despite claims about the legality of the representation.
Motion to Declare Defendant in Default
Petitioner filed a motion to declare the City in default, asserting that the answer submitted was invalid since it was signed by a private counsel rather than the City’s authorized legal officer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied this motion, stating that a default can only be declared under clear circumstances of refusal or neglect.
Court of Appeals Rulings
Upon appeal, the CA dismissed the petitioner’s petition, arguing that the signatory of the verification/certification of non-forum shopping did not have the proper authorization. The petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading them to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
Grounds for Petition
The petitioner’s arguments included claims of grave abuse of discretion by the CA in denying their certification as not properly authorized; an erroneous application of precedent; and that the CA improperly dismissed their motion for reconsideration based on the lack of a certification against forum shopping.
Standard for Certiorari
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari may only be granted when there is no other adequate remedy in the legal process. It cited earlier decisions that established that the dismissal of a case is typically subject to appeal rather than certiorari and that an available appeal negates the grounds for certiorari relief.
Firm Basis for Dismissal of Petition
The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to prove that the dismissal could not be adequately addressed through an appeal. The ruling stressed that the circumstance of dismissals being final orders merits appeal by nature, which the petitioner did not pursue.
Authority to Sign Certification
On the merits, the Court assessed the allegations regarding authorit
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 153653)
Case Citation
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Date: October 02, 2009
- G.R. No.: 153653
- Volume: 617 Phil. 231
- Division: Third Division
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc., represented by its President, Mr. Evelio Barata
- Respondents:
- The City of Mandaluyong, represented by Hon. Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Jr.
- A.F. Calma General Construction, represented by its President, Armengo F. Calma
Procedural History
- The case arises from a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking nullification of the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated April 16, 2002, and May 14, 2002, which dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner.
Facts of the Case
- The petitioner, an association of urban poor dwellers, filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against the City of Mandaluyong and A.F. Calma General Construction.
- The basis of the complaint was a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and the petitioner regarding a housing project under the City’s Land for the Landless Program.
- The City was to purchase lots and transfer them to the petitioner, who would then have houses constructed on these lots by Calma within a stipulated 540-day period.
- Construction commenced in June 1995 but was halted in June 1996, with the project remaining incomplete after the agreed timeline.
- The petitioner’s attempts to communicate with the City regarding the project’s status went unanswered, prompting the filing of the complaint.
Legal Issues Raised
- The City claimed that the MOA was abrogated because the petition