G.R. No. 204528
Feb. 19, 2013
En Banc
FACTS:
Respondent Gatdula filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo in the RTC of Manila, directed against petitioners.
Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo or not, the judge issued summons and ordered the petitioners to file an answer. He also set the case for hearing.
The counsel for petitioners manifested that a Return and not an Answer is appropriate for Amparo cases but the Judge opined that the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure applied since an Amparo case is summary in nature, thus, required an Answer.
The hearing was conducted and the judge ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda.
RTC then rendered a decision granting the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and interim reliefs prayed for namely: Temporary protection, production and inspection orders.
The decision was assailed by the petitioners through a Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45 as enunciated in Sec. 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the filing of an Answer was appropriate?
2. Whether or not the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure apply in a Petition for Writ of Amparo?
3. Whether or not the holding of the hearing on the main case was proper?
4. Whether or not the filing of the memorandum was proper?
5. Whether or not the decision granting the privilege of the Writ and the interim reliefs was correct?
6. Whether or not the mode of appeal under Rule 45 availed by the Petitioners was correct?
RULING:
1. No. It is the Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo.
2. The Revised Rules of Summary Procedures apply only to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. It is mind-boggling how this rule could possibly apply to proceedings in an RTC. Aside from that, this Court limited the application of summary procedure to certain civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact.34 It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced.
3. No. The holding of the hearing without the Return was not proper. There will be a summary hearing only after the Return is filed to determine the merits of the petition and whether interim reliefs are warranted. If the Return is not filed, the hearing will be done ex parte.
4. No. A memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
5. No. The decision was not correct. This gives the impression that the decision was the judgment since the phraseology is similar to Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo:
"SEC. 18. Judgment. — The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied." (Emphasis supplied).
The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The judgment should detail the required acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the petitioner's life, liberty or security.
A judgment which simply grants "the privilege of the writ" cannot be executed.
6. The Petition for Review is not the proper remedy to assail the interlocutory order. A Petition for Certiorari, on the other hand, is prohibited. Simply dismissing the present petition, however, will cause grave injustice to the parties involved. It undermines the salutary purposes for which the Rule on the Writ of Amparo were promulgated.
HELD:
(1) NULLIFY all orders issued by the Judge in relation to this Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo case;
(2) DIRECT the Judge to determine within forty-eight (48) hours from his receipt of this Resolution whether the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is proper on the basis of the petition and its attached affidavits.
Penned by: Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
Feb. 19, 2013
En Banc
FACTS:
Respondent Gatdula filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo in the RTC of Manila, directed against petitioners.
Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo or not, the judge issued summons and ordered the petitioners to file an answer. He also set the case for hearing.
The counsel for petitioners manifested that a Return and not an Answer is appropriate for Amparo cases but the Judge opined that the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure applied since an Amparo case is summary in nature, thus, required an Answer.
The hearing was conducted and the judge ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda.
RTC then rendered a decision granting the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and interim reliefs prayed for namely: Temporary protection, production and inspection orders.
The decision was assailed by the petitioners through a Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45 as enunciated in Sec. 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the filing of an Answer was appropriate?
2. Whether or not the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure apply in a Petition for Writ of Amparo?
3. Whether or not the holding of the hearing on the main case was proper?
4. Whether or not the filing of the memorandum was proper?
5. Whether or not the decision granting the privilege of the Writ and the interim reliefs was correct?
6. Whether or not the mode of appeal under Rule 45 availed by the Petitioners was correct?
RULING:
1. No. It is the Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo.
2. The Revised Rules of Summary Procedures apply only to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. It is mind-boggling how this rule could possibly apply to proceedings in an RTC. Aside from that, this Court limited the application of summary procedure to certain civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact.34 It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced.
3. No. The holding of the hearing without the Return was not proper. There will be a summary hearing only after the Return is filed to determine the merits of the petition and whether interim reliefs are warranted. If the Return is not filed, the hearing will be done ex parte.
4. No. A memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
5. No. The decision was not correct. This gives the impression that the decision was the judgment since the phraseology is similar to Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo:
"SEC. 18. Judgment. — The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied." (Emphasis supplied).
The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The judgment should detail the required acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the petitioner's life, liberty or security.
A judgment which simply grants "the privilege of the writ" cannot be executed.
6. The Petition for Review is not the proper remedy to assail the interlocutory order. A Petition for Certiorari, on the other hand, is prohibited. Simply dismissing the present petition, however, will cause grave injustice to the parties involved. It undermines the salutary purposes for which the Rule on the Writ of Amparo were promulgated.
HELD:
(1) NULLIFY all orders issued by the Judge in relation to this Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo case;
(2) DIRECT the Judge to determine within forty-eight (48) hours from his receipt of this Resolution whether the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is proper on the basis of the petition and its attached affidavits.
Penned by: Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
