What's your remedy after losing a small claims case?

Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases states that:
SEC. 23.Decision. — After the hearing, the court shall render its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties. The decision shall be final and unappealable.
Considering the final nature of a small claims case decision under the above-stated rule, the remedy of appeal is not allowed, and the prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its execution.[1] Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an available remedy,[2] does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.This general rule has been enunciated in the case of Okada v. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation,[3] wherein it was held that: “the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

In Jaca v. Davao Lumber Co., the Court ruled:
Although Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that the special civil action of certiorari may only be invoked when “there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law,” this rule is not without exception. The availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari where appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient. It is the inadequacy – not the mere absence – of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ that usually determines the propriety of certiorari. 
This ruling was reiterated in Conti v. Court of Appeals: 
Truly, an essential requisite for the availability of the extraordinary remedies under the Rules is an absence of an appeal nor any “plain, speedy and adequate remedy” in the ordinary course of law, one which has been so defined as a “remedy which (would) equally (be) beneficial, speedy and sufficient not merely a remedy which at some time in the future will bring about a revival of the judgment x x x complained of in the certiorari proceeding, but a remedy which will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the inferior court or tribunal” concerned. xxx
There is, of course, apprehension that the recourse under Rule 65 filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) would only circumvent the non-appealable nature of small claims cases, because it asks the court to supplant the decision of the lower court with another decision, for instance, directing the private respondent to pay the petitioner a bigger sum than what has been awarded.Verily, a petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action[4] designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment. Owing to its nature, it is therefore incumbent upon petitioner to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the lower court's decision. The RTC, in turn, could either grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of whether or not the lower court gravely abused its discretion by capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to the controversy.[5]

[1] Section 24, Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.

[2] See Republic v. Narceda, G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 483, 489-490, citing Republic v. Tango, G.R. No. 161062, July 31, 2009, 594 SCRA 560, 566-567 involving summary proceedings for petitions for the declaration of presumptive death; see also Sarona v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 185280, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 394, 411-425, involving illegal dismissal cases decided by the NLRC; Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

[3] G.R. No. 164344, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 124, 141-142, citing Jaca v. Davao Lumber Co., 198 Phil. 493, 517 (1982) and Conti v. CA, 336 Phil. 956, 965 (1999).

[4] Dy v. Hon. Bibat-Palamos, G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013.

[5 Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater, G.R. No. 179169, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 182, 192.

Popular Posts