G.R. No.

200804 January 22, 2014

A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
EMMA MONDEJAR, accoman!"# $y %"r %u&$an#, E'REN MONDEJAR, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
(ERLA)*+ERNA+E, J.:
This is a direct recourse1 to the Court from the ecision! dated Novem"er !#, !$11and Order# dated
%e"ruar& 1', !$1! of the Re(iona) Tria) Court of *aco)od Cit&, *ranch +, -RTC. in RTC Case No. 11/
1#0## 1hich dismissed, on the (round of improper remed&, petitioner 2.L. 2n( Net1or3, Inc.4s
-petitioner. petition for certiorari from the ecision+ dated 5une 1$, !$11 of the 6unicipa) Tria) Court in
Cities of *aco)od Cit&, *ranch + -6TCC. in Civi) Case No. SCC/1+#', a sma)) c)aims case for sum of
mone& a(ainst respondent Emma 6onde7ar -respondent..
The %acts
On 6arch !#, !$11, petitioner fi)ed a comp)aint, for sum of mone& under the Ru)e of Procedure for
Sma)) C)aims Cases' "efore the 6TCC, see3in( to co))ect from respondent the amount of P!#,111.81
1hich represented her unpaid 1ater "i))s for the period 5une 1, !$$! to Septem"er #$, !$$,.8
Petitioner c)aimed that it 1as du)& authori9ed to supp)& 1ater to and co))ect pa&ment therefor from the
homeo1ners of Re(ent Pear) Su"division, one of 1hom is respondent 1ho o1ns and occupies Lot 0,
*)oc3 # of said su"division. %rom 5une 1, !$$! unti) Septem"er #$, !$$,, respondent and her fami)&
consumed a tota) of 1,1,$ cu"ic meters -cu. m.. of 1ater, 1hich upon app)ication of the a(reed rate
of P11#.$$ for ever& 1$ cu. m. of 1ater, p)us an additiona) char(e of P11.'$ for ever& additiona) cu. m.
of 1ater, amounted to P!0,,0$.$:.0 ;o1ever, respondent on)& paid the amount of P,,+'0.#0, thus,
)eavin( a "a)ance of P!#,111.81 1hich 1as )eft unpaid despite petitioner<s repeated demands.:
In defense, respondent contended that since 2pri) 1::0 up to %e"ruar& !$$#, she re)i(ious)& paid
petitioner the a(reed month)& f)at rate of P8,.$$ for her 1ater consumption. Not1ithstandin( their
a(reement that the same 1ou)d "e ad7usted on)& upon prior notice to the homeo1ners, petitioner
uni)atera))& char(ed her unreasona")e and e=cessive ad7ustments -at the avera(e of +$ cu. m. of 1ater
per month or 1.# cu. m. of 1ater a da&. far a"ove the avera(e dai)& 1ater consumption for a househo)d
of on)& # persons. She a)so >uestioned the propriet& and?or "asis of the aforesaid P!#,111.81 c)aim.1$
In the interim, petitioner disconnected respondent<s 1ater )ine for not pa&in( the ad7usted 1ater char(es
since 6arch !$$# up to 2u(ust !$$,.11
The 6TCC Ru)in(
On 5une 1$, !$11, the 6TCC rendered a ecision1! ho)din( that since petitioner 1as issued a
Certificate of Pu")ic Convenience -CPC.1# "& the Nationa) @ater Resources *oard -N@R*. on)& on
2u(ust 8, !$$#, then, it can on)& char(e respondent the a(reed f)at rate of P8,.$$ per month prior
thereto or the sum of P1,$,$.$$ for the period 5une 1, !$$! to 2u(ust 8, !$$#. Thus, (iven that
respondent had made tota) pa&ments e>uiva)ent to P1,'0,.:: for the same period, she shou)d "e
considered to have fu))& paid petitioner.1+
The 6TCC disre(arded petitioner<s re)iance on the ;ousin( and Land Use Re(u)ator& *oard<s
-;LUR*. ecision1,dated 2u(ust 18, !$$$ in ;LUR* Case No. RE6 C'/$$/$$1 entit)ed No))ie *.
2pura, et a). v. ona Carmen I Su"division, et a)., as source of its authorit& to impose ne1 1ater
consumption rates for 1ater consumed from 5une 1, !$$! to 2u(ust 8, !$$# in the a"sence of proof -a.
that petitioner comp)ied 1ith the directive to inform the ;LUR* of the resu)t of its consu)tation 1ith the
concerned homeo1ners as re(ards the rates to "e char(ed, and -". that the ;LUR* approved of the
same.1'
6oreover, the 6TCC noted that petitioner fai)ed to su"mit evidence sho1in( -a. the e=act date 1hen it
actua))& "e(an imposin( the N@R* approved ratesA and -". that the parties had a forma) a(reement
containin( the terms and conditions thereof, 1ithout 1hich it cannot esta")ish 1ith certaint&
respondent<s o")i(ation.18 2ccordin()&, it ru)ed that the ear)ier a(reed rate of P8,.$$ per month shou)d
sti)) "e the "asis for respondent<s 1ater consumption char(es for the period 2u(ust 0, !$$# to
Septem"er #$, !$$,.10 *ased on petitioner<s computation, respondent had on)& paid P#$$.$$ of
her P1,,$$.$$ o")i(ation for said period. Thus, it ordered respondent to pa& petitioner the "a)ance
thereof, e>uiva)ent to P1,!$$.$$ 1ith )e(a) interest at the rate of 'B per annum from date of receipt of
the e=tra7udicia) demand on Octo"er 1+, !$1$ unti) fu))& paid.1:
2((rieved, petitioner fi)ed a petition for certiorari!$ under Ru)e ', of the Ru)es of Court "efore the RTC,
ascri"in( (rave a"use of discretion on the part of the 6TCC in findin( that it -petitioner. fai)ed to
esta")ish 1ith certaint& respondent<s o")i(ation, and in not orderin( the )atter to pa& the fu)) amount
sou(ht to "e co))ected.
The RTC Ru)in(
On Novem"er !#, !$11, the RTC issued a ecision!1 dismissin( the petition for certiorari, findin( that
the said petition 1as on)& fi)ed to circumvent the non/appea)a")e nature of sma)) c)aims cases as
provided under Section !#!!of the Ru)e of Procedure on Sma)) C)aims Cases. To this end, the RTC
ru)ed that it cannot supp)ant the decision of the 6TCC 1ith another decision directin( respondent to pa&
petitioner a "i((er sum than that 1hich has "een a1arded.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration!# "ut 1as denied in an Order!+ dated %e"ruar& 1', !$1!, hence,
the instant petition.
The Issue *efore the Court
The so)e issue in this case is 1hether or not the RTC erred in dismissin( petitioner<s recourse under
Ru)e ', of the Ru)es of Court assai)in( the propriet& of the 6TCC ecision in the su"7ect sma)) c)aims
case.
The Court<s Ru)in(
The petition is meritorious.
Section !# of the Ru)e of Procedure for Sma)) C)aims Cases states thatC
SEC. !#. ecision. D 2fter the hearin(, the court sha)) render its decision on the same da&, "ased on
the facts esta")ished "& the evidence -%orm 1#/SCC.. The decision sha)) immediate)& "e entered "& the
C)er3 of Court in the court doc3et for civi) cases and a cop& thereof forth1ith served on the parties.
The decision sha)) "e fina) and unappea)a")e.
Considerin( the fina) nature of a sma)) c)aims case decision under the a"ove/stated ru)e, the remed& of
appea) is not a))o1ed, and the prevai)in( part& ma&, thus, immediate)& move for its
e=ecution.!, Neverthe)ess, the proscription on appea)s in sma)) c)aims cases, simi)ar to other
proceedin(s 1here appea) is not an avai)a")e remed&,!' does not prec)ude the a((rieved part& from
fi)in( a petition for certiorari under Ru)e ', of the Ru)es of Court. This (enera) ru)e has "een enunciated
in the case of O3ada v. Securit& Pacific 2ssurance Corporation,!8 1herein it 1as he)d thatC
In a )on( )ine of cases, the Court has consistent)& ru)ed that Ethe e=traordinar& 1rit of certiorari is a)1a&s
avai)a")e 1here there is no appea) or an& other p)ain, speed& and ade>uate remed& in the ordinar&
course of )a1.E In 5aca v. avao Lum"er Co., the Court ru)edC
= = = 2)thou(h Section 1, Ru)e ', of the Ru)es of Court provides that the specia) civi) action of certiorari
ma& on)& "e invo3ed 1hen Ethere is no appea), nor an& p)ain, speed& and ade>uate remed& in the
course of )a1,E this ru)e is not 1ithout e=ception. The avai)a"i)it& of the ordinar& course of appea) does
not constitute sufficient (round to prevent a part& from ma3in( use of the e=traordinar& remed& of
certiorari 1here appea) is not an ade>uate remed& or e>ua))& "eneficia), speed& and sufficient. It is the
inade>uac& F not the mere a"sence F of a)) other )e(a) remedies and the dan(er of fai)ure of 7ustice
1ithout the 1rit that usua))& determines the propriet& of certiorari.
This ru)in( 1as reiterated in Conti v. Court of 2ppea)sC
Tru)&, an essentia) re>uisite for the avai)a"i)it& of the e=traordinar& remedies under the Ru)es is an
a"sence of an appea) nor an& Ep)ain, speed& and ade>uate remed&E in the ordinar& course of )a1, one
1hich has "een so defined as a Eremed& 1hich -1ou)d. e>ua))& -"e. "eneficia), speed& and sufficient
not mere)& a remed& 1hich at some time in the future 1i)) "rin( a"out a reviva) of the 7ud(ment = = =
comp)ained of in the certiorari proceedin(, "ut a remed& 1hich 1i)) prompt)& re)ieve the petitioner from
the in7urious effects of that 7ud(ment and the acts of the inferior court or tri"una)E concerned. = = =
-Emphasis supp)ied.
In this re)ation, it ma& not "e amiss to p)acate the RTC<s apprehension that respondent<s recourse
"efore it -1as on)& fi)ed to circumvent the non/appea)a")e nature of Gsma)) c)aims casesH, "ecause it
as3s Gthe courtH to supp)ant the decision of the )o1er GcHourt 1ith another decision directin( the private
respondent to pa& the petitioner a "i((er sum than 1hat has "een a1arded.E!0 Ieri)&, a petition for
certiorari, un)i3e an appea), is an ori(ina) action!: desi(ned to correct on)& errors of 7urisdiction and not
of 7ud(ment. O1in( to its nature, it is therefore incum"ent upon petitioner to esta")ish that 7urisdictiona)
errors tainted the 6TCC ecision. The RTC, in turn, cou)d either (rant or dismiss the petition "ased on
an eva)uation of 1hether or not the 6TCC (rave)& a"used its discretion "& capricious)&, 1himsica))&, or
ar"itrari)& disre(ardin( evidence that is materia) to the controvers&.#$
In vie1 of the fore(oin(, the Court thus finds that petitioner correct)& avai)ed of the remed& of certiorari
to assai) the propriet& of the 6TCC ecision in the su"7ect sma)) c)aims case, contrar& to the RTC<s
ru)in(.
Li3e1ise, the Court finds that petitioner fi)ed the said petition "efore the proper forum -i.e., the
RTC..1J1phi 1 To "e sure, the Court, the Court of 2ppea)s and the Re(iona) Tria) Courts have concurrent
7urisdiction to issue a 1rit of certiorari.#1 Such concurrence of 7urisdiction, ho1ever, does not (ive a
part& un"rid)ed freedom to choose the venue of his action )est he ran afou) of the doctrine of hierarch&
of courts. Instead, a "ecomin( re(ard for 7udicia) hierarch& dictates that petitions for the issuance of
1rits of certiorari a(ainst first )eve) courts shou)d "e fi)ed 1ith the Re(iona) Tria) Court, and those
a(ainst the )atter, 1ith the Court of 2ppea)s, "efore resort ma& "e had "efore the Court. #! This
procedure is a)so in consonance 1ith Section +, Ru)e ', of the Ru)es of Court.##
;ence, considerin( that sma)) c)aims cases are e=c)usive)& 1ithin the 7urisdiction of the 6etropo)itan
Tria) Courts, 6unicipa) Tria) Courts in Cities, 6unicipa) Tria) Courts, and 6unicipa) Circuit Tria)
Courts,#+ certiorari petitions assai)in( its dispositions shou)d "e fi)ed "efore their correspondin(
Re(iona) Tria) Courts. This petitioner comp)ied 1ith 1hen it instituted its petition for certiorari "efore the
RTC 1hich, as previous)& mentioned, has 7urisdiction over the same. In fine, the RTC erred in
dismissin( the said petition on the (round that it 1as an improper remed&, and, as such, RTC Case No.
11/1#0## must "e reinstated and remanded thereto for its proper disposition.
@;ERE%ORE, the petition is KR2NTE. The ecision dated Novem"er !#, !$11 and Reso)ution
dated %e"ruar& 1', !$1! of the Re(iona) Tria) Court of *aco)od Cit&, *ranch +, are REIERSE and
SET 2SIE. RTC Case No. 11/1#0## is here"& REINST2TE and the court a >uo is ordered to reso)ve
the same 1ith dispatch.
SO ORERE.