G.R. No. 173820 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY , the Decision dated December 18, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, is hereby REVERSED . SO ORDERED . [19] While declaring that the case had become moot and academic in view of the May 30, 2001 decision of the CA (First Division), the CA (Tenth Division) decided on the merits of the case and resolved two issues, namely: (1) whether or not petitioner was the agent of respondent; and (2) whether or not the foreclosure of mortgage was valid. [20] The decision substantially echoed the ruling of the CA (First Division) in CA-G.R. CV No. 59931. Aggrieved, petitioner comes before the Court with the following arguments: I. The Petition for Certiorari should have been immediately dismissed by the Court of Appeals on the ground of FORUM SHOPPING. II. The Petition for Certiorari should have been immediately dismissed as there was a remedy ( i.e. , Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal) available to the Respondent. III. The respondents Petition, purportedly a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, did not allege that any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. IV. Even if the respondents Petition is decided on the issues enumerated by the Court of Appeals in its questioned Decision, the Petition for Certiorari must be dismissed for utter lack of merit and for not being supported by the evidence on record. [21] The petition is meritorious. The case stemmed from two separate cases one for annulment of foreclosure in Civil Case No. 1587-A and another case for issuance of the writ of possession in LR Case No. 90-787. The cases were consolidated by the RTC and were eventually disposed of in one judgment embodied in the December 18, 1997 RTC decision. This notwithstanding, respondent treated the cases separately and availed of two remedies, an appeal in Civil Case No. 1587-A and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in LR Case No. 90-787. The appeal was decided by the CA (First Division) then eventually settled by the Court in G.R. No. 152071 on May 8, 2009. The petition for certiorari , on the other hand, was later decided by the CA (Tenth Division), which decision is now the subject of this present petition. Respondent herein committed a procedural blunder when it filed a separate petition for certiorari before the CA, because when the two cases were consolidated and a joint decision was rendered, the cases lost their identities; and a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail a decision granting the issuance of a writ of possession. Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy while providin