G.R. No. 183869 - LEONARDO L. VILLALON, VS. RENATO E. LIRIO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED , the assailed ORDER of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 157, Pasig City dated 17 October 2005 is NULLIFIED." The CA denied Villalon's motion for reconsideration; thus, he came to us for relief via the present petition. The Petition [14] Villalon claims that the CA erred in giving due course to Lirio's petition for certiorari considering that appeal became available after the RTC dismissed the complaint. Villalon asserts that an order granting a motion to dismiss is final and appealable. He argues that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court prospers only when there is neither appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, Villalon insists that Lirio should have appealed the order of dismissal since a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Moreover, Villalon notes that Lirio failed to show how an appeal could have been inadequate. Villalon further posits that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion, even assuming that certiorari was proper. He avers that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint because the allegations failed to show a cause of action against him. Villalon likewise alleges that the CA erred when, in order to apply the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity, it had to add allegations not found in the complaint. The Respondent's Case [15] Lirio argues that certiorari is allowed even if appeal is available where appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy. Although Lirio agrees that he could have appealed the RTC's order dismissing the complaint against Villalon, he contends that appeal was not speedy and adequate because the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it whimsically and arbitrarily ignored existing doctrines on piercing the veil of corporate fiction. Lirio insists that Villalon had a role in the surreptitious and fraudulent removal of Semicon's merchandise, effects, and various equipment from the leased premises and their transfer to another location, which deprived him of his preferred lien over the said merchandise, effects, and equipment. Lirio further argues that there is a sufficient cause of action to hold Villalon personally liable for Semicon's liability because the allegations of fraud and evasion of contractual obligations were clearly spelled out in the complaint. The Issues Based on the foregoing, we resolve: (1) whether the petition for certiorari to the CA was the proper remedy; and (2) whether the complaint failed to state a cause of action against Villalon. The Court's Ruling We grant the petition. Specifically, we rule that (1) Lirio's resort to certiorari with the CA was improper; and (2) the complaint failed to state a cause of action. A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. This Court has repeatedly held that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only when there is neit