VANGIE BARRAZONA vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SAN-AN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP.

FACTS: Respondent filed a complaint for collection of sum of money with Damages. Petitioner has been leased units in a building owned by San-an Realty and Development Corporation for a period of two years. Petitioner defaulted in the payment of the monthly rentals and failed to pay despite demands. Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the complaint considering that the allegations therein clearly indicate that the action is one for ejectment or illegal detainer which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. Motion to Dismiss was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner hence filed the instant Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the denial of her motion to dismiss and that such is unconstitutional as it does not state its legal basis. Conversely, respondent contends that the complaint is for the collection of unpaid rentals as there is absolutely no allegation that its intent is to eject petitioner from the premises; petitioner should have first filed a motion for reconsideration before resorting to the extraordinary suit of certiorari; and the assailed order denying petitioners motion to dismiss is interlocutory and, therefore, cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. ISSUE: W/N RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying her Motion to Dismiss. HELD: The SC Held That: While an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and nonappeallable, however, if the denial is without or in excess of jurisdiction, certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies from such order of denial. In Time, Inc. v. Reyes, this Court, speaking through Justice J.B. L. Reyes, held: The motion to dismiss was predicated on the respondent courts lack of jurisdiction to entertain the action; and the rulings of this Court are that writs of certiorari or prohibition, or both, may issue in case of a denial or deferment of an action or on the basis of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Verily, the writ of certiorari is granted to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated June 19, 2002 issued by the RTC, Branch 61, Baguio City, in Civil Case No. 5238-R, is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

Whether or not the denial the Motion to Dismiss was proper. While the rule is that before certiorari may be availed of, petitioner must first file a motion for reconsideration with the lower court of the act or order complained of, however, such rule is not without exception. The Court have, in several instances, dispensed with the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a lower courts ruling, such as: where the proceedings in which the error occurred is a patent nullity; where the question is purely of law; when public interest is involved; where judicial intervention is urgent or its application may cause great and irreparable damage; and where the court a quo has no jurisdiction, as in this case. In petitioners complaint, the allegation clearly shows that San-an Realty made several demands upon Barrazona to pay her overdue rentals and to vacate the premises; and that the last demand to pay and vacate in writing was on March 27, 2002. San-an Realty thus complied with Section 2, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that the lessor may proceed against the lessee only after demand to pay and vacate.

ROSARIO TEXTILE MILLS, INC., CORPORATE OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROSARIO TEXTILE MILLS, INC., and EDILBERTO YUJUICO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE LUIS R. TONGCO, Presiding Judge, Branch 155, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, PETER PAN CORP. and RMC GARMENTS, INC., respondents. Facts: RMC Garments, Inc. (RMC) leased from Peter Pan Corporation (Peter Pan) its properties (Leased Premises). RMC, a garments manufacturing company, installed machinery on the Leased Premises and brought in furniture, office equipment and supplies. Rosario Textile Mills Corp. (Rosario Textile) advised RMC in a letter that it had acquired the Leased Premises, from GBC Corporation (GBC) through a Deed of Assignment of Rights and Interests. GBC in turn, bought the Leased Premises at a foreclosure sale by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Rosario Textile demanded that RMC vacate the Leased Premises within 10 days and warned that it would avail of its rights of ownership either judicially or extra-judicially if RMC failed to do so. RMC and Peter Pan filed an injunction suit in the trial court to remove all the obstructions and the grant of a right of way to the Leased Premises. Rosario Textile, DBP and the Philippine National Bank (PNB) opposed the injunction on the ground that RMC had not shown a clear right in esse that the court should protect. The trial court issued an Order granting RMC access to the Leased Premises upon posting bond. Upon entry, RMC filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the return of the missing chattels. Rosario Textile opposed the motion claiming ownership over the building and its contents. The trial court granted RMCs motion. Rosario Textile assailed the Order in a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the Order. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision, which attained finality with the entry of judgment. The trial court issued an Order requiring Rosario Textile to comply with the Orders. The trial court reiterated its orders directing defendants to allow entry to the Leased Premises and to return the various machineries they took. However, Rosario Textile did not comply. RMC filed two motions to cite Rosario Textiles board of directors and officers in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the trial courts final order. Rosario Textiles board of directors and officers opposed the motion claiming they had no knowledge of the order requiring them to return the sewing machines since their counsel did not inform them of the order. The trial court issued another Order requiring the responsible officers of Rosario Textile (petitioners officers) to return the sewing machines within 5 days from notice under pain of contempt. Petitioners officers moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.

Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Compliance stating that they could no longer return the sewing machines since these were gutted by the fire. Petitioners attached the fire marshals report stating that the fire was accidental. The trial court issued the Order ruling that the alleged destruction of the sewing machines did not extinguish petitioners obligation to return these machines. The trial court held that petitioners were already in default at the time the fire allegedly destroyed the machines. The trial court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioners assailed the Orders in a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit in the assailed Decision. The appellate court denied the motion to reconsider the same. Hence, the instant petition. Issue: Ruling: whether the order finding petitioners in contempt of court is valid. The SC Held That:

To comply with the procedural requirements of indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, there must be (1) a complaint in writing which may either be a motion for contempt filed by a party or an order issued by the court requiring a person to appear and explain his conduct, and (2) an opportunity for the person charged to appear and explain his conduct. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for lack of merit.