Title
Supreme Court
Eda vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 155251
Decision Date
Dec 8, 2004
A dispute over a P500,000 business arrangement led to a P1.2M claim; RTC ruled for respondent, appeal denied due to late filing, upheld by SC.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 155251)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Dispute
    • On September 20, 1999, respondent Reynaldo Santos filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioner Arnulfo Eda at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 29.
    • The dispute arose from an alleged business arrangement where Santos provided funds that Eda was supposed to loan to his officemates. Eda was to collect the repayments with interest, retain a 1% commission, and turn over the remaining amounts to Santos.
  • Allegations and Claims
    • Respondent Santos, in his amended complaint, alleged:
      • An agreement wherein Santos supplied a total of P500,000.00.
      • Eda’s failure to remit collections from loans (extending from 1995 to 1998), and instead, loaning these payments to other borrowers.
      • The execution of an instrument where Eda admitted receiving P100,000.00 that was to be further loaned out with an interest rate of 14% payable within sixty days.
    • Santos claimed that the amounts due, including the principal and accrued interest, now totaled P1,200,000.00, and he demanded payment of said amount plus additional attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • During pre-trial, petitioner Eda questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC over the principal claim of P100,000.00.
    • Through the trial court proceedings:
      • Both parties presented testimonial and documentary evidence, including promissory notes and the executed instrument.
      • On April 24, 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering Eda to pay Santos P1,185,030.00, with legal interest from the date of filing, plus attorney’s fees of P20,000.00 and costs.
    • Eda filed a motion for reconsideration on June 11, 2001, which the trial court denied on July 11, 2001.
    • Subsequent actions on appeal were initiated by filing a Notice of Appeal on July 27, 2001; however, the trial court later denied due course to this appeal on July 30, 2001, holding that it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
  • Further Appellate Proceedings
    • The petitioner then moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of his appeal, which was similarly denied on September 10, 2001.
    • Eda subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging several aspects:
      • The denial of his Notice of Appeal, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
      • The decision of the RTC on jurisdiction and the subsequent erroneous rulings.
    • On April 30, 2002, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari, finding that:
      • The Notice of Appeal was filed out of time.
      • Certiorari cannot serve as a substitute remedy for an appeal lost due to non-compliance with the jurisdictional, reglementary period.
    • A motion for reconsideration of the CA’s decision was likewise denied on September 12, 2002.
  • Contested Points Raised by the Petitioner
    • Jurisdictional Defenses:
      • Eda asserted that the jurisdiction of the RTC should be questioned based on his contention that the actual investment by Santos was only P100,000.00, thus invoking Republic Act No. 7691 which designated the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila as having exclusive jurisdiction over such cases.
    • Timeliness and Equity Relief:
      • He argued that the late filing of the Notice of Appeal should be excused under the equity jurisdiction of the courts to achieve substantial justice, contending that payment of the appeal fee perfected the appeal.
    • Overall, he contended that technical rules should be relaxed given the apparent errors committed by the lower court.
  • Final Outcome at the Appellate Level
    • The CA found that:
      • The RTC’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper, basing its decision on the law as at the time of filing the complaint and the allegations contained therein.
      • Notice of Appeal, as a matter of Rule 41 – Section 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, must be filed within the prescribed period. Payment of the appeal fee was not sufficient to perfect the appeal.
    • Consequently, the CA denied both the petition for certiorari and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, thus letting stand the denial of Eda’s late-filed appeal.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional Issue
    • Whether the RTC had proper jurisdiction to hear the complaint for a sum of money given the subject matter and the amount involved.
    • Whether the petitioner’s pre-trial questioning of the trial court's jurisdiction was a valid defense affecting the subsequent proceedings.
  • Timeliness of the Appeal
    • Whether an appeal filed beyond the reglementary period may be given due course based on the exercise of equity jurisdiction and the payment of the appeal fee.
    • Whether the petitioner provided a compelling or exceptional reason to relax the strict requirement of timely filing.
  • Appropriate Application of Technical Rules
    • Whether technical rules regarding the perfection of an appeal (i.e., the necessity of filing within the prescribed period) should give way to considerations of substantial justice.
    • Whether the petition for certiorari was an appropriate remedy for the alleged grave abuse of discretion in denying the Notice of Appeal.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms