You are on page 1of 2

A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC. V.

MONDEJAR TOPIC: RULES OF PROCEDURE


FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

Action: Petition for review on certiorari from the nature of small claims cases as provided
decision of the RTC of Bacolod City under Sec. 23 o the Rule of Procedure on
Small Claims Cases; it cannot supplant
Facts (and parties): the decision of the MTCC with another
Petitioner, claiming to be duly authorized to decision directing payment of a bigger
supply water and collect payments from sum than that which has been awarded.
homeowners of Regent Pearl Subdivision, seeks *Pet: MR
to collect from respondent Emma Mondejar ⇨ Denied
P23,111.71 representing her unpaid water bills 3. SC: Petition for review on certiorari
from June 2002-Sept. 2005, which was left ⇨ SC Ruling: Petition GRANTED.
unpaid despite petitioner’s repeated demands. Petitioner correctly availed of the
Respondent contended that from April 1998- remedy of certiorari to assail the
February 2003, she religiously paid petitioner propriety of the MTCC decision in the
the agreed P75 monthly flat rate for her water subject small claims case. RTC has
consumption until petitioner unilaterally jurisdiction over the case.
charged her unreasonable and excessive ● Under Sec. 23 of the Rule of Procedure
adjustments above the average daily water for Small Claims Cases, the decision of
consumption, despite their agreement that the the small claims court is final and
same would be adjusted only upon prior notice unappealable. Hence, the remedy of
to the homeowners. appeal is not allowed. Nonetheless, the
aggrieved party is not precluded from
Procedural: filing a petition for certiorari under Rule
1. MTCC Bacolod: complaint for sum of money 65 of the Rules of Court
under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims o Okada vs. Security Pacific
Cases Assurance Corp.: the
 P75 flat rate applies for payments from extraordinary writ of certiorari
June 2002-August 7, 2003, as it was only is always available where there
on August 7, 2003 that petitioner was is no appeal or any other plain,
issued a CPC by the NWRB. R’s speedy and adequate remedy in
payment > amount to be paid the ordinary course of law
 Petitioner failed to submit evidence  Petitioner also filed the said petition
establishing respondent’s obligation; before the proper forum (RTC)
o The SC, CA and RTC have
hence, the agreed P75 rate should still be
concurrent jurisdiction to issue
the basis for respondent’s water
a writ of certiorari; however,
consumption charges for August 8,
this does not give a party
2003-Sept 30, 2005. Respondent was
unbridled freedom to choose
directed to pay the balance for the
the venue of his action
period based on such rates.
o Under the doctrine of hierarchy
2. RTC Bacolod: Petition for certiorari under
of courts, petitions for the
Rule 65 filed by petitioner
issuance of writs of certiorari
*Petitioner: MTCC committed grave abuse of
against 1st level courts should be
discretion: (a) in finding that petitioner failed to
filed with the RTC, and those
establish with certainty respondent’s obligation
against the latter, with the CA,
and (b) in not ordering respondent to pay the
before resort may be had before
full amount sought to be collected
the Court, in consonance with
⇨ RTC Decision: dismissed petition for
Sec. 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of
certiorari. Ruled that petition was only
Court.
filed to circumvent the non-appealable
BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES 3-EVE
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC. V. MONDEJAR TOPIC: RULES OF PROCEDURE
FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

 As small claims cases are within the


exclusive jurisdiction of the MeTC,
MTCC, MTC, and MCTC, certiorari
petitions assailing its dispositions
should be filed before their
corresponding RTCs. Hence petitioner
complied with the procedure when it
instituted its petition for certiorari
before the RTC

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES 3-EVE