Certiorari as an Improper Remedy: Interlocutory Orders and Grave Abuse of Discretion in Recovery of Possession

The Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Carniyan v. Home Guaranty Corporation (G.R. No. 228516) is a clear reminder that certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy of last resort, not a shortcut for litigants unhappy with a trial court’s interim rulings. The case involved a recovery of possession suit where the defendants, instead of filing an answer, repeatedly sought to challenge the trial judge’s orders through certiorari. The Court denied the petition, reaffirming that interlocutory orders—such as a denial of a motion to dismiss or a declaration of default—must be addressed through the ordinary remedies provided by the Rules of Court.

The Facts of the Case

Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC) filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Ricardo Carniyan and other residents of a parcel of land in Quezon City covered by TCT No. 262715. Instead of filing an answer, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Archive the Case, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because HGC had not submitted a certified true copy of the title and the property’s assessed value fell below the jurisdictional threshold.

The trial court denied both motions on March 18, 2011, ruling that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not by the evidence presented. The court later denied the defendants’ motion to expunge and their motion for inhibition, and ordered them to file an answer within ten days. When the defendants failed to comply, the court declared them in default and allowed HGC to present evidence ex parte.

The Issue

The central question was whether the trial court’s four challenged orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion, warranting correction through certiorari.

The Ruling: Certiorari Was the Wrong Remedy

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition, holding that certiorari was an improper remedy for challenging the trial court’s interlocutory orders.

Denial of Motion to Dismiss Is Interlocutory. An order denying a motion to dismiss does not finally dispose of the case. It is an interlocutory order that leaves the case pending before the trial court. As the Court explained, the proper remedy for a party aggrieved by such an order is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and, if an adverse judgment is rendered, raise the denial as an error on appeal. Certiorari lies only in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Exceptions to the Rule. The Court acknowledged that certiorari may be available against an order denying a motion to dismiss when the order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, or when its issuance is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. None of these exceptions applied in this case. The defendants’ argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because HGC failed to submit a certified copy of the title was misplaced—jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the pleadings, not by the evidence.

Default Orders Have Their Own Remedy. When the defendants were declared in default, their remedy was not certiorari. Under Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, a party declared in default may file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default, showing that the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and that the party has a meritorious defense. The defendants failed to avail of this remedy, and their bare allegations of grave abuse of discretion could not substitute for it.

No Grave Abuse in the Challenged Orders. The Court found no evidence that the trial judge acted arbitrarily or despotically. The denial of the second motion for inhibition was proper under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC, which limits each party to one motion for inhibition. The rescheduling of the ex parte hearing was a routine administrative matter, not an abuse of discretion.

Practical Takeaways

• Know the difference between final and interlocutory orders. A denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory; it cannot be appealed immediately. The remedy is to file an answer and raise the issue on appeal from the final judgment.
• Certiorari is not a substitute for ordinary remedies. Rule 65 is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be used to circumvent the rules on default or motions to dismiss.
• If declared in default, act quickly. A party declared in default should file a verified motion to set aside the default order, attaching an affidavit of merit showing a meritorious defense. This is the prescribed remedy, not certiorari.
• Jurisdiction is determined by the complaint, not the evidence. A motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction must be resolved based on the allegations in the pleadings, not on whether the plaintiff has yet presented proof of ownership.
• Multiple motions for inhibition are prohibited. Under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC, each party is allowed only one motion for inhibition. A second motion may be treated as a mere scrap of paper.

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