Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83164:57135&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:31:35+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 190253, June 11, 2014 - JUAN TRAJANO A.K.A. JOHNNY TRAJANO, Petitioner, v. UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, Respondent.
JUAN TRAJANO A.K.A. JOHNNY TRAJANO, Petitioner, v. UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB, Respondent.
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari,1 filed by petitioner Juan Trajano, to challenge the July 29, 2009 decision2 and the October 28, 2009 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101815.
After the RTC denied31 Trajano’s motion for reconsideration32 in an order dated October 15, 2007, he filed a petition for certiorari assailing the June 19 and October 15, 2007 orders before the CA.33 The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 101815.
In its Comment,40 Uniwide claims that Trajano’s petition is in fact an appeal from the June 19 and October 15, 2007 orders of the RTC since he did not raise the issue of “whether the CA correctly found that Judge Macapagal did not commit grave abuse of discretion” in deferring the resolution of Trajano’s pending motions. Thus, Trajano incorrectly availed of a Rule 45 petition in assailing the RTC’s interlocutory orders. Uniwide also points out that Trajano failed to show that Judge Macapagal gravely abused his discretion in issuing the June 19 and October 15, 2007 orders. Lastly, Uniwide prays for the outright denial of the petition because it lacks competent evidence of Trajano’s identity in its verification page.
Whether the CA erred in not finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending the proceedings in Civil Case No. 05-0265.
Contrary to Uniwide’s claim, the records of the case show that the petition’s verification page contains Trajano’s competent evidence of identity, specifically, Passport No. XX041470.47 Trajano’s failure to furnish Uniwide a copy of the petition containing his competent evidence of identity is a minor error that this Court may and chooses to brush aside in the interest of substantial justice. This Court has, in proper instances, relaxed the application of the Rules of Procedure when the party has shown substantial compliance with it.48 In these cases, we have held that the rules of procedure should not be applied in a very technical sense when it defeats the purpose for which it had been enacted, i.e., to ensure the orderly, just and speedy dispensation of cases.49 We maintain this ruling in this procedural aspect of this case.
We also see no merit in Uniwide’s claim that Trajano improperly availed of the present petition for review on certiorari in assailing the RTC orders dated June 19 and October 15, 2007. The body of the petition clearly and unequivocably challenges the CA decision dated January 3, 2008 and resolution dated October 28, 2009. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court invokes the Court’s appellate jurisdiction over questions of law that has been decided by the lower courts with finality. The CA decision assailed by the present petition involves its final order regarding the alleged grave abuse of discretion involved in the RTC’s interlocutory orders.
This CA decision should not be confused with the RTC’s interlocutory orders that had been disputed before the CA, which was correctly contested by Trajano through a petition for certiorari. In J.L. Bernardo Construction v. Court of Appeals,50 we stated that a petition for certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order: (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.
Thus, Trajano correctly filed a petition for certiorari before the CA in order to strike down the RTC’s interlocutory orders that he claims to have been issued with grave abuse of discretion. In the same vein, Trajano’s present petition for review on certiorari is also the proper remedy, as it questions the CA’s final order regarding the RTC’s interlocutory orders.
Amidst the myriad of procedures that the parties had taken before the lower courts and this Court, the main focus of the controversy — i.e., whether the CA erred in not finding a jurisdictional error on the June 19 and October 15, 2007 orders of the RTC — no longer presents a justiciable controversy. The CA and the parties have overlooked the crucial fact that the CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 93492, had already dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction that enjoined Trajano from encashing the subject post-dated checks. Moreover, the dissolution of the writ had long become final and executory on February 27, 2008.
In its June 19 and October 15, 2007 orders, the RTC deferred the resolution of Trajano’s motions to post counterbond and for partial reconsideration dated January 11, 2006. These motions were filed to lift the writ of preliminary injunction. In addition, the motion for partial reconsideration questioned the RTC’s suspension of its ruling on the motion to post counterbond pending its ocular inspection of the subject goods. In turn, the order commanding the examination of the goods stemmed from Uniwide’s motion for ocular inspection in support of its opposition to Trajano’s motion to post counterbond.
In other words, the gist of the controversy in CA-G.R. SP No. 101815 that are now the subject of the present petition pertains to the posting of counterbond to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction, which had already been lifted with respect to Trajano in CA-G.R. SP No. 93492. Thus, Trajano is no longer entitled to any substantial relief on his pending motions before the RTC as the writ of preliminary injunction itself had already been dissolved with finality.
We also note that Trajano himself admitted that the subject post-dated checks had already become stale.51 A stale check is one which has not been presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue; it is valueless and, therefore, should not be paid.52 For these reasons, we hold that this issue has been rendered moot and academic.
From these perspectives, the appellate court erroneously applied the principle of judicial courtesy in the current case. There is no strong probability that the issue of the propriety of Judge Madrona’s voluntary inhibition in CA-G.R. SP No. 95885 would be rendered moot and academic by the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we PARTLY GRANT the petition. The resolution of petitioner Juan Trajano’s motion to post counterbond dated September 9, 2005, motion for partial reconsideration of the order allowing ocular inspection dated January 11, 2006, and supplemental motion to the motion for partial reconsideration dated January 12, 2006 is hereby declared MOOT AND ACADEMIC. The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque – Branch 195 is hereby ordered to CONTINUE with the proceedings in Civil Case No. 05-0265.
1 Dated January 4, 2010 and filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 25-48.
2 Id. at 9-20; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo.
20 Id. at 11-12; and 78-279.
21 Id. at 168-236; Trajano assailed the RTC orders dated August 6 and December 22, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 93492.
27 Uniwide assailed the RTC orders dated February 15, 2006 and June 30, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 95885.
29Rollo in G.R. No. 193972, pp. 9-23.
34 247 Phil. 387-398 (1988).
41Rollo in G.R. No. 193972, pp. 27-40.
44 Dated September 9, 2005.
45 Dated January 11, 2006.
47Rollo, p.49; The passport was issued on January 23, 2010 in Manila.
48Alcantara v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank, 634 SCRA 48, 59-60, G.R. No. 151349, October 20, 2010; and Security Bank Corp. v. Indiana Aerospace University, G.R. No. 146197, 500 Phil. 51, 58 (2005).
49Serrano v. Galant Maritime Services, Inc., 455 Phil. 993, 998-999 (2003).
50 G.R. No. 105827, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 24, 34.
52The International Corporate Bank v. Spouses Gueco, 404 Phil. 356, 366 (2001).
54Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holding Corp., 479 Phil. 769-771, 778-782 (2004).
55 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Section 7.
56Herrera, Remedial Law III, 2006 Ed., p. 363.
58 Id. at 387-388, 394.
59 G.R. No. 88705, June 11, 1992, 209 SCRA, 746.
60 446 Phil. 228-229, 238 (2003).
61 525 Phil. 806, 810 (2006).
62 See also Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 532 Phil. 340, 350 (2006).
63Bacalso v. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-22488, October 26, 1967, 21 SCRA 519, 524; Maloles II v. Phillips, 381 Phil. 193-194 (2000); People v. Gorospe, G.R. No. L-51513, May 15, 1984; and Municipality of Daet v. Court of Appeals, 182 Phil. 84, 104 (1979).

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