378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Audi AG vs. Mejia

*
G.R. No. 167533. July 27, 2007.

AUDI AG, petitioner, vs. HON. JULES A. MEJIA, in his

capacity as Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Alaminos City; AUTO PROMINENCE CORPORATION;
and PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION, respondents.

Remedial Law; Certiorari; Motions for Reconsideration; The

well-established rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an
indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended.—Petitioner failed to file with the
trial court the requisite motion for reconsideration of the
challenged Order before resorting to the instant recourse. The
well-established rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an
indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to
the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Thus, petitioner should
have first filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration,
as such special civil action may be resorted to only when “there is
no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.” Such indispensable

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

379

VOL. 528, JULY 27, 2007 379

Audi AG vs. Mejia

requirement may, in well recognized instances, be glossed over to

prevent a miscarriage of justice, or when the need for relief is
extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy
remedy available. Petitioner failed to show sufficient justification
for its failure to comply with the requirement.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioner may not arrogate unto itself the
determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary
or not.—We cannot accept petitioner’s submission that a motion
for reconsideration “is unnecessary” as its petition raises a
question of law and that the assailed Order is a patent nullity.
Petitioner may not arrogate unto itself the determination of
whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary or not. Its
submission runs counter to the purpose of the rule that a motion
for reconsideration would afford the erring court or agency an
opportunity to rectify the error/s it may have committed without
the intervention of a higher court. Such motion is not only an
expeditious remedy of an aggrieved party but also obviates an
improvident and unnecessary recourse to appellate proceedings.
Same; Same; Jurisdictions; The Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court have original concurrent jurisdiction over petitions
for certiorari; The rule on hierarchy of courts determines the venue
of appeals.—Petitioner, by filing directly with this Court its
petition, has ignored the established rule on hierarchy of courts.
It must be stressed that the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court have original concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari. The rule on hierarchy of courts determines the venue of
appeals. Such rule is necessary to prevent inordinate demands
upon the Court’s precious time and attention which are better
devoted to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to
prevent further overcrowding of the Court’s docket. Thus,
petitioner should have filed with the Court of Appeals its petition,
not directly with this Court. While such rule may be relaxed for
special and important reasons clearly and specifically set out in
the petition, however, in the instant case, petitioner failed to
discharge that burden.
Civil Procedure; The rules of procedure exists for a noble
purpose and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal
construction would be to defeat such purpose; Procedural rules are
not to be disdained as mere technicalities.—We stress that the
rules of procedure

380

380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Audi AG vs. Mejia

exist for a noble purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise
of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose.
Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities.
They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party.
Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive
rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice.
Rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate
litigation. But they help provide for a vital system of justice where
suitors may be heard following judicial procedure and in the
correct forum. Public order and our system of justice are well
served by a conscientious observance by the parties of the
procedural rules.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Bernas Law Offices for petitioner.
     Purita Hontanosas-Cortes for private respondents.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Before us for resolution is the instant Petition for

Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, alleging that respondent Executive
Judge Jules A. Mejia of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Alaminos City (Pangasinan) acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the Orders dated March 29 and July 6,
2005 in Civil Case No. A-3010, entitled “Auto Prominence
Corporation and Proton Pilipinas Corporation, Plaintiffs,
versus Audi AG, Defendant.”
The petition alleges that Audi AG, petitioner, is a
nonresident foreign company engaged in the manufacture
of “Audi” brand cars. It is organized and existing under the
laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, with principal
office at I/VO-3, 85045 Ingolstadt, Germany. It is not
licensed to do business
1
in the Philippines but is suing on an
isolated transaction.

_______________

1 Petition; Rollo, p. 4.

381

VOL. 528, JULY 27, 2007 381

Audi AG vs. Mejia

Auto Prominence Corporation and Proton Pilipinas

Corporation (Proton), respondents, are corporations duly
organized and existing under Philippine laws engaged in
the business of assembling, buying, selling, distributing,
importing, marketing, and servicing of motor vehicles.
They have a common principal office at Barangay Alos,
Alaminos City.
 On March 21, 2005, respondents filed with the RTC,
Alaminos City a complaint for specific performance and
injunction (with application for a temporary restraining
order [TRO] and preliminary injunction) against petitioner
Audi AG, docketed as Civil Case No. A-3010. The complaint
alleges inter alia that on August 1, 1996, petitioner
appointed respondent Proton as its sole assembler and
distributor of Audi cars in the Philippines under an
Assembly Agreement and a Distributorship Agreement;
that respondent Proton was induced to open, promote,
develop and sell Audi brand cars in the Philippines upon
petitioner’s representations that it (respondent Proton) will
be the exclusive assembler and distributor of Audi cars and
local parts manufacturer for export purposes, for a period
of 12 months and, thereafter, for an indefinite period upon
the establishment of the assembly and distributorship
network; that respondent Proton, relying upon petitioner’s
representations, was enticed to: (a) borrow money to
establish the assembly plant and building for petitioner; (b)
buy tools and equipment for its assembly plant and
distributorship; (c) spend for its showrooms and offices; and
(d) pay its license fees, technical brochure and other
expenses; that it turned out that petitioner did not include
the Philippines in its ASEAN Assembly Strategy program,
but only Malaysia, thus frustrating respondent Proton’s
assembly preparations; that with evident bad faith,
petitioner has been negotiating for the transfer of the
distributorship of the Audi cars to a third party; and that
both respondents were surprised when they received from
petitioner a letter dated September 27, 2004 terminating
the assembly and the distributorship agreements for
reasons which to them are unjustified. Thus, the complaint
prays that petitioner be ordered to comply with

382

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Audi AG vs. Mejia

the exclusive assembly and distributorship agreements;

and that, pending the determination of the merits of the
case, a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
ordering petitioner, its representative, or any person
claiming rights under it, to maintain the status quo ante,
and restrain them from doing any act contrary to the
parties’ existing agreements.
After the complaint was filed, respondent Executive
Judge Jules A. Mejia issued an Order (a) directing that
summons and a copy of the complaint be served upon
petitioner through extra-territorial service; and (b) setting
on March 29, 2005 the hearing of the application for TRO.
On March 29, 2005, after conducting a hearing wherein
respondents presented two witnesses, respondent
Executive Judge issued the Order in question directing the
issuance of a TRO effective for twenty (20) days, enjoining
petitioner from terminating the contracts executed by the
parties, and directing it or any person claiming rights
under it, to maintain the status quo ante. The raffle of the
case was set on April 8, 2005 at two o’clock in the
afternoon.
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner contends that respondent Executive Judge’s
March 29, 2005 Order granting a TRO for twenty (20) days
was “issued in a capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical
manner constituting grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction” because (a) the Order
violates the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 58 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; and (b) it was
issued even before Civil Case No. A-3010 was raffled to a
ponente.
Meanwhile, petitioner filed with the trial court an
Urgent Motion for Voluntary Inhibition of respondent
Executive Judge. But the motion was denied in an Order
dated July 6, 2005,2 prompting petitioner to file a
supplemental petition praying for the nullification of this
Order.

_______________

2 Id., p. 165.

383

VOL. 528, JULY 27, 2007 383

Audi AG vs. Mejia

3 4
In their Opposition and Comment, respondents pray that
the petition be dismissed for lack of merit. Specifically,
they alleged that the petition suffers from the following
defects: (1) it was filed in the absence of a motion for
reconsideration of the assailed Order; (2) petitioner failed
to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts; (3) the
certification against forum shopping is defective as it was
executed by counsel for petitioner, not by the latter’s
officers; and (4) the issue raised against the challenged
Order of March 29, 2005 had become moot and academic.
The respondents are correct.
Indeed, we cannot ignore the fatal defects in the
petition.
 First, petitioner failed to file with the trial court the
requisite motion for reconsideration of the challenged
Order before resorting to the instant recourse. The well-
established rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an
indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can
resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule
5
65
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Thus,
petitioner should have first filed with the trial court a
motion for reconsideration, as such special civil action may
be resorted to only when “there is no appeal, nor any plain,
speedy,
6
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.” Such indispensable requirement may, in well
recognized instances, be glossed over to prevent a
miscarriage of justice, or when the need for relief is
extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and
speedy remedy

_______________

3 Id., p. 67.
4 Id., p. 105.
5 Abacan, Jr. v. Northwestern University, Inc., G.R. No. 140777, April 8,
2005, 455 SCRA 136; Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 142133, November 19, 2002, 392 SCRA 229.
6 Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

384

384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Audi AG vs. Mejia

7
available. Petitioner failed to show sufficient justification
for its failure to comply with the requirement.
We cannot accept petitioner’s submission that a motion
for reconsideration “is unnecessary” as its petition raises a
question of law and that the assailed Order is a patent
nullity. Petitioner may not arrogate unto itself the
determination of whether
8
a motion for reconsideration is
necessary or not. Its submission runs counter to the
purpose of the rule that a motion for reconsideration would
afford the erring court or agency an opportunity to rectify
the error/s it may 9have committed without the intervention
of a higher court. Such motion is not only an expeditious
remedy of an aggrieved party but also obviates an
improvident 10 and unnecessary recourse to appellate
proceedings.
Second, petitioner, by filing directly with this Court its
petition, has ignored the established rule on hierarchy of
courts. It must be stressed that the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court have original concurrent jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari. The 11rule on hierarchy of courts
determines the venue of appeals. Such rule is necessary to
prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s precious time
and attention which are better devoted to matters within
its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
overcrowding of the Court’s

_______________

7Acance v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159699. March 16, 2005, 453
SCRA 548.
8 Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra, citing
Zapata v. National Labor Relations Commission, 175 SCRA 56 (1989).
9 Id., citing Seagull Shipmanagement and Transport, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 333 SCRA 236 (2000).
10 Id., citing Zapata v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra.
11 Sherwill Development Corporation v. Sitio Sto. Niño Residents
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 158455, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 517, citing
Del Rosario v. Montaña, 430 SCRA 109 (2004).

385

VOL. 528, JULY 27, 2007 385

Audi AG vs. Mejia

12
docket. Thus, petitioner should have filed with the Court
of Appeals its petition, not directly with this Court. While
such rule may be relaxed for special and important reasons
clearly and specifically set out in the petition, however, in
the instant case, petitioner failed to discharge that burden.
Once again, we stress that the rules of procedure exist
for a noble purpose, and to disregard such rules in the
guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such
purpose. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere
technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the
convenience of a party. Adjective law ensures the effective
enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and
speedy administration of justice. Rules are not intended to
hamper litigants or complicate litigation. But they help
provide for a vital system of justice where suitors may be
heard following judicial procedure and in the correct forum.
Public order and our system of justice are well served by a
conscientious
13
observance by the parties of the procedural
rules.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, Azcuna and

Garcia, JJ., concur.
 Petition dismissed.

_______________

12 Id., citing Liga Ng Mga Barangay National v. Atienza, Jr., 420 SCRA
562 (2004); Microsoft Corporation v. Best Deal Computer Center
Corporation, 389 SCRA 615 (2002).
13 United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. United Pulp and Paper Chapter-
Federation of Free Workers, G.R. No. 141117, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA
329, citing Kowloon House/Willy Ng v. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
140024, June 18, 2003; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of
Appeals, 351 SCRA 436 (2001).

386

386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Government Service Insurance System vs. Palma

Note.—In general, the rule that a motion for

reconsideration is needed before a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65, Rules of Court can be resorted to admits
exceptions. (Gabi Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. vs.
Republic, 441 SCRA 484 [2004])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.