Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81697:gr-200727-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:06:51+00:00

Document:
G.R. NO. 200727 - Irene Villamar-sandoval v. Jose Cailipan, et al.
IRENE VILLAMAR-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v.JOSE CAILIPAN, MARIA OFELIA M. GONZALES, LAURA J. CAYABYAB, ROGELIO COSTALES, and FERNANDO V. AUSTRIA, Respondents.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 is the September 30, 2011 Decision2 and February 1, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) of Cagayan de Oro City -in CA-G.R. SP No. 03976-MIN which set aside the October 20, 201 0 and November 10, 201 0 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Koronadal City, Branch 24 declaring respondents in default.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration,21 arguing that: (1) since the main case had already been decided by the RTC through its January 11, 2011 Decision and respondents have availed of the remedy of appeal, the latter's petition for certiorari filed with the CA on January 11, 2011 was already moot and academic; and (2) the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it declared respondents in default.
Essentially, the following issues are presented for the Court's resolution: (1) whether respondents' petition for certiorari was an improper remedy and/or had been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the RTC's January 11, 2011 Decision; and (2) whether the CA erred in setting aside the October 20, 2010 and November 10, 2010 RTC Orders.
The general rule is that certiorari will not lie as a substitute for an appeal, for relief through a special action like certiorari may only be established when no remedy by appeal lies. The exception to this rule is conceded only "where public welfare and the advancement of public policy so dictate, and the broader interests of justice so require, or where the orders complained of were found to be completely null and void, or that appeal was not considered the appropriate remedy, such as in appeals from orders of preliminary attachment or appointments of receiver." (Fernando v. Vasquez, L- 26417, 30 January 1970; 31 SCRA 288). For example, certiorari maybe available where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual (Romero Sr. v. Court of Appeals, L-29659, 30 July 1971; 40 SCRA 172).
Applying the foregoing principles to the case at bar, it is clear that respondents' January 11, 2011 petition for certiorari was rendered superfluous by their January 22, 2011 appeal.
Although respondents did not err in filing the certiorari petition with the CA on January 11, 2011 as they only received the RTC's Decision three days after the said date and therefore could not have availed of the remedy of an appeal at that time29 the Court observes that respondents should have (a) withdrawn their certiorari petition and instead raised the jurisdictional errors stated therein in their appeal30 or (b) at the very least, informed the CA's Twenty-First Division31 of the Decision rendered on the main case and the filing of their Notice of Appeal on January 22, 2011. Prudence should have guided them to pursue either course of action considering the well-entrenched conflict between the remedies of an appeal and a petition for certiorari, of which they should have been well aware of.
Unfortunately, their omission resulted in the CA's issuance of the September 30, 2011 Decision and February 1, 2012 Resolution in the certiorari case which set aside the assailed interlocutory orders, notwithstanding the supervening rendition of a decision on the main case, thus creating an evident procedural impasse.
In view of the above-discussed considerations and considering the fact that respondents' petition for certiorari cannot anymore be dismissed, the Court is constrained to set aside the September 30, 2011 Decision and February 1, 2012 Resolution of the CA. Consequently, this course of action will allow the CA Division where the appeal of the main case is pending to appropriately pass upon the merits of the RTC's January 11, 2011 Decision including all assailed irregularities in the proceedings such as the validity of the default orders. To rule otherwise would only serve to perpetuate the procedural errors already committed in this case.
Given the foregoing pronouncement, there exists no cogent reason to further dwell on the issue regarding the RTC's grave abuse of discretion in issuing the October 20, 2010 and November 10, 2010 default orders. As earlier mentioned, that matter may be properly ventilated on appeal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The September 30, 2011 Decision and February 1, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03976-MIN are hereby SET ASIDE.
32 Baldo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. NO. 176135, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 306, 310-311, citing Villarico v. CA, 424 Phil. 26, 33-34 (2002).

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.