View full case

A.L. ANG NETWORK v. EMMA MONDEJAR

FACTS:

The petitioner, A.L. Ang Network, Inc., filed a complaint for sum of money against the respondent, Emma Mondejar, before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Bacolod City (MTCC). The petitioner sought to collect unpaid water bills amounting to P23,111.71 from the respondent for the period June 1, 2002, to September 30, 2005. The petitioner claimed to be authorized to supply water and collect payments from the homeowners of Regent Pearl Subdivision, including the respondent. The respondent only paid P5,468.38, leaving a balance of P23,111.71, despite repeated demands from the petitioner.

The respondent, in defense, contended that she religiously paid a monthly flat rate of P75.00 for water consumption from April 1998 to February 2003. The petitioner unilaterally charged unreasonable and excessive adjustments without prior notice to the homeowners, contrary to their agreement. The respondent questioned the basis of the P23,111.71 claim. In the meantime, the petitioner disconnected the respondent's water line for non-payment of adjusted water charges from March 2003 to August 2005.

The MTCC held that since the petitioner was issued a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) only on August 7, 2003, it can only charge the respondent the agreed flat rate of P75.00 per month prior to that date. Therefore, the respondent should be considered to have fully paid for the period June 1, 2002, to August 7, 2003, given that she made total payments equivalent to P1,685.99 for the same period. The MTCC also noted that the petitioner failed to provide evidence on the exact date it began imposing the new rates imposed by the National Water Resources Board (NWRB), as well as a formal agreement between the parties. Thus, the MTCC ruled that the earlier agreed rate of P75.00 per month should be the basis for the respondent's water consumption charges from August 8, 2003, to September 30, 2005. The petitioner was only able to establish that the respondent paid P300.00 of her P1,500.00 obligation for that period. The MTCC ordered the respondent to pay the balance of P1,200.00 with legal interest.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), assailing the MTCC decision. However, the RTC dismissed the petition, finding that it was filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of small claims cases. The RTC ruled that it cannot substitute its decision with one directing the respondent to pay a larger amount. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Thus, the petitioner sought recourse before the Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner's recourse under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the propriety of the MTCC Decision in the subject small claims case.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner's recourse. Petitioner correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari to assail the propriety of the MTCC Decision. The petition was properly filed before the RTC, which has jurisdiction over certiorari petitions against first-level courts. As such, the RTC's decision to dismiss the petition on the ground of improper remedy was incorrect, and RTC Case No. 11-13833 should be reinstated and remanded for proper disposition.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Certiorari as a remedy: The extraordinary writ of certiorari is available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Rule 65, Rules of Court).

  2. Finality of small claims decisions: The decision in small claims cases is final and unappealable (Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases).

  3. Concurrent jurisdiction: The Court, Court of Appeals, and Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, but the doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates petitions should follow a proper filing sequence.

  4. Judicial hierarchy: A petition for certiorari against first-level courts should be filed with the corresponding Regional Trial Court.

  5. Errors of jurisdiction vs. errors of judgment: A petition for certiorari is an original action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. Owing to its nature, petitions should establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the lower court's decision.