G.R. No. 84628 - Heirs of Ildefonso Coscolluela, Sr., Inc. vs. Rico General Insurance Corp.

Petitioner: Heirs of Ildefonso Coscoluella, Sr., Inc., a domestic corporation and registered owner of an Isuzu KBD Pick-up truck (Motor No. 663296, Plate No. UV-FAW-189).
Private Respondent: Rico General Insurance Corporation, the insurer under a Commercial Vehicle Policy (No. CV/122415 per Renewal Certificate No. 02189) for a premium of P100,000.00, excluding third-party liability.
Insurance Coverage Period: October 1, 1986 to October 1, 1987, as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 691 dated September 8, 1986.

On August 28, 1987, within the policy period, the insured vehicle was severely damaged when it was fired upon by a group of unidentified armed persons at Hacienda Puyas, Barangay Blumentritt, Murcia, Negros Occidental.
The incident resulted in the death of four persons and rendered the vehicle unserviceable.
The petitioner filed a claim for P80,000.00 to cover the cost of repairs, including repair work, repainting, spare parts replacement, and labor, which were estimated upon expert appraisal.

The private respondent denied the claim by referring to policy provisions that exclude liability for damages arising from certain risks, including incidents related to civil commotion, rebellion, insurrection, or similar events.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint citing lack of a cause of action, basing its decision on the contention that the damage arose from or was a consequence of a civil commotion irrespective of the absence of any official governmental proclamation confirming such a state.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner but later denied; a second motion was also filed but was subsequently withdrawn.

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal; however, the trial court’s order stated that the records would not be transmitted to the Court of Appeals, holding that the proper remedial measure was a petition for review by way of certiorari rather than an appeal.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to assail the dismissal order and to address the inadequacy of the remedy for reaching the trial court’s decision.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari, affirming the trial court’s dismissal order and ruling that the petitioner should have resorted to an ordinary appeal rather than a special civil action of certiorari.

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action despite the allegations sufficiently establishing the insurer’s contractual obligations and the petitioner’s right to indemnity.
Whether the facts as alleged in the complaint, when hypothetically admitted, establish a valid claim against the insurance company for the damage incurred.

Whether the appellate court erred in denying due course to the petition for certiorari on the ground that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal rather than a special civil action of certiorari.
Whether the trial court’s failure to transmit the records to the Court of Appeals, thereby precluding an ordinary appeal, justified the use of certiorari as the only available remedy.