Certiorari as an Improper Remedy: Navigating Procedural Missteps in Foreclosure Annulment

In a 2010 ruling, the Supreme Court reminded litigants that a special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The case, Samson v. Judge Fiel-Macaraig (G.R. No. 166356), arose from an annulment of an extra-judicial foreclosure sale. The Court clarified when certiorari is proper and why a party who misses the appeal window cannot use this remedy to revive a case.

The Facts of the Case

In 1998, Benedicta and Marcial Samson obtained a ₱10 million loan from the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), secured by a real estate mortgage over four parcels of land in Marikina City. When the Samsons failed to pay, FEBTC applied for extra-judicial foreclosure. The sheriff set the auction for June 8, 2000, with proper publication and posting of the notice.

On the auction date, only one bidder appeared. The sheriff postponed the sale to June 29, 2000, as allowed by the notice and by Supreme Court rules requiring at least two bidders. At the second auction, FEBTC won as the highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale was issued in the bank's favor.

The Procedural Missteps

Nearly two years later, in June 2002, the Samsons and co-heirs filed a complaint to annul the foreclosure and nullify the sale and titles. They alleged lack of posting and publication. The case was raffled to Branch 192 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City.

The RTC denied the application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Six months later, in June 2003, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. The dismissal was with prejudice, meaning it had the effect of an adjudication on the merits.

The Samsons moved for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it. Some plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, but Benedicta and Marcial Samson instead filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy because an ordinary appeal was available.

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The central question was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari. The Samsons argued that the RTC judge gravely abused her discretion in dismissing the case, particularly because one defendant had not yet filed an answer. They also questioned the validity of the second auction for lack of posting and publication.

The Ruling: Certiorari Is Not a Substitute for Appeal

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court explained that a writ of certiorari lies only for errors of jurisdiction—when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is available only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

The RTC order dismissing the complaint was a final judgment that disposed of the case on the merits. The remedy to challenge such a judgment is an ordinary appeal, not certiorari. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court includes grave abuse of discretion in findings of fact or law. The availability of the right to appeal precludes recourse to certiorari.

No Grave Abuse of Discretion

Even assuming certiorari could lie, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The RTC dismissed the case under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action for an unreasonable length of time. The Samsons failed to move for pre-trial as required by Section 1, Rule 18.

The Court rejected the argument that the sheriff's failure to file an answer excused the Samsons' inaction. They could have moved to declare the sheriff in default to avoid delay. There was no showing that the RTC judge acted in a despotic or arbitrary manner, or with passion or personal hostility.

Practical Takeaways

• Certiorari is not a fallback remedy. If an appeal is available, Rule 65 certiorari cannot be used, even if the lower court allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion.
• A dismissal for failure to prosecute is a final judgment. Such an order disposes of the case on the merits and must be challenged through an ordinary appeal, not certiorari.
• Plaintiffs must diligently prosecute their cases. Under Rule 18, the plaintiff must promptly move for pre-trial after the last pleading is filed. Delay can result in dismissal with prejudice.
• A defendant's failure to answer is not an excuse for inaction. The proper response is to move for a declaration of default, not to let the case languish.
• Grave abuse of discretion is a high standard. It requires capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment—not mere errors of law or fact.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.