PBCom v. CA

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS VS. CA, ET AL.

G.R. NO. 218901

FEBRUARY 15, 2017

FACTS:

This Complaint for collection of a sum of money in the amount of P8,971,118.06 was filed by PBCOM against private respondents before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 56 and docketed as Civil Case No. 10-185.

Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the Complaint alleging that their obligation had already been paid in full and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because PBCOM failed to pay the correct docket fees.

On September 29, 2010, the RTC issued an Order directing PBCOM to pay additional docket fees in the amount of P24,765.70, within fifteen days from receipt of thereof.

On October 21, 2010, PBCOM paid the additional docket fees but filed its Compliance with the RTC only on November 11, 2010.

In the interim, however, the RTC issued an Order dated November 4, 2010, dismissing PBCOM's Complaint.

PBCOM filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated November 22, 2010, stating that it had paid the additional docket fees within the period prescribed by the court as evidenced by the Official Receipt attached thereto.

In an Order dated May 3, 2011, the RTC denied PBCOM's motion for reconsideration.

Undaunted, PBCOM timely filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 26, 2011.

On June 2, 2011, the RTC issued an Assailed Order, denying due course to PBCOM's Notice of Appeal on the ground that said appeal is not the proper remedy.

Without filing a motion for reconsideration, PBCOM filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA.

On July 31, 2014, the CA issued the assailed Decision denying PBCOM's Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and affirming the order of the RTC, with a reason that, apart from availing itself of a wrong mode of appeal, PBCOM failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of a motion for reconsideration. The CA emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for a petition for certiorari to prosper.

On August 26, 2014, PBCOM filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision, but the same was denied by the CA for having been filed out of time.

ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied PBCOM's motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was filed one (1) day late.

2. Whether respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied PBCOM's petition for certiorari and mandamus on the ground that a prior motion for reconsideration is required.

3. Whether respondent Judge should be compelled by mandamus to approve PBCOM's notice of appeal and to transmit the case records to the Court of Appeals.

4. Whether respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it ruled that the petition for certiorari and mandamus is a wrong mode of appeal.

THE RULING OF THE COURT:

The Court notes that PBCOM availed of the wrong mode of appeal in bringing the case before the Court. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail the July 31, 2014 Decision and May 5, 2015 Resolution of the CA. In Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc. the Court held that:

The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright.

However, under exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the rules will result in manifest injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities and proceed with the appeal. Citing the case of Tanenglian v. Lorenzo, the Court recognized the broader interest of justice and gave due course to the appeal even if it was a wrong mode of appeal and was even filed beyond the reglementary period provided by the rules. The Court reasoned that:

We have not been oblivious to or unmindful of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the Rules, allowing us, depending on the circumstances, to set aside technical infirmities and give due course to the appeal. In cases where we dispense with the technicalities, we do not mean to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by law. In those rare cases where we did not stringently apply the procedural rules, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of a grave injustice. Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just and proper disposition of his cause.

Citing the Sebastian v. Morales, the Court rules that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure, thus:

The Court has allowed some meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent procedural defects and lapses. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided. It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.

Considering that what is at stake in the present case is PBCOM's statutory right to appeal and the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of its cause, the Court resolves to set aside PBCOM's procedural mistake and give due course to its petition.

The Court finds PBCOM's arguments impressed with merit.

In the assailed Decision, the CA appears to have confused the RTC Order dismissing PBCOM's complaint with the RTC Order denying PBCOM's notice of appeal, and mistakenly ruled that the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by PBCOM was a wrong mode of appeal.

Records will bear that the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for sum of money was grounded on private respondents' [petitioner] failure to timely comply with the order dated 29 September 2010 of the public respondent which is pursuant to Section 3 Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.

Section 3 Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides that:

"Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court."

In Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, the Court ruled that a Trial Court's order disallowing a notice of appeal, which is tantamount to a disallowance or dismissal of the appeal itself, is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken. The suitable remedy for the aggrieved party is to elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65. Clearly, contrary to the CA's finding, PBCOM availed itself of the correct remedy in questioning the disallowance of its notice of appeal.

Rule 41, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure states:

SEC. 13. Dismissal of appeal. - Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may, motu proprio or on motion, dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period.

In Salvan v. People, the Court held that the power of the RTC to dismiss an appeal is limited to the instances specified in the afore-quoted provision. In other words, the RTC has no jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground - such as "that an appeal is not a proper remedy."

The authority to dismiss an appeal for being an improper remedy is specifically vested upon the CA and not the RTC. Rule 50, Section 1 of the same Rules states:

SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee.

Dismissals of appeal may also be had upon the grounds specified by Rule 50 of the Rules of Court; but it is the Court of Appeals, not the Trial Court, which is explicitly authorized to dismiss appeals on said grounds. Generally, these grounds do not include matters which go into the merits of the cause or to the right of the plaintiff or defendant to recover. Case law has come to recognize other grounds for dismissal, by way of exception, e.g., that the cause has become moot, or the appeal is frivolous or manifestly dilatory. But, to repeat, authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that it is frivolous or taken manifestly for delay "is not certainly with the court a quo whose decision is an issue, but with the appellate court."

In fine, the assailed RTC Order, denying due course to PBCOM's notice of appeal on the ground that it was a wrong remedy, is a patent nullity. The RTC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Digested by jsg