Case Digest (G.R. No. 156067)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 156067)
Facts:
Madrigal Transport, Inc., G.R. No. 156067, August 11, 2004, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Madrigal Transport, Inc.; respondents are Lapanday Holdings Corporation, Macondray and Company, Inc., and Luis P. Lorenzo Jr.On February 9, 1998, Madrigal filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 49, Manila. On February 21, 1998, before RTC Branch 36, Madrigal filed a separate Complaint for damages against Lapanday, Macondray and Lorenzo, alleging a joint-venture agreement to operate vessels for Del Monte Philippines, Inc., securing a P10,000,000 bank loan to purchase a vessel, and respondents' failure (despite representations and guarantees) to deliver charter hire contracts from Del Monte. The insolvency court declared Madrigal insolvent on February 23, 1998.
Respondents moved to dismiss the Branch 36 complaint (motions filed March 30 and April 6, 1998). On December 16, 1998, RTC Branch 36 granted the motions and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, applying Sections 32 and 33 of the Insolvency Law and reasoning that the assignee had the exclusive right to prosecute claims. Madrigal's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 26, 1999.
Madrigal then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to set aside the December 16, 1998 and July 26, 1999 orders. The CA initially required explanation why the petition should not be dismissed because the orders appeared appealable. On January 10, 2000, the CA treated the petition as one for review (an exception) because it involved a pure question of law; respondents filed a motion for reconsideration dated February 10, 2000. On February 28, 2002 the CA, upon reconsideration, granted respondents' motion and dismissed Madrigal's petition for certiorari, ruling that the order granting a motion to dismiss was final and appealable and that issues of pure law should have been brought to the Supreme Court under Section 2, Rule 50 and Section 2(c), Rule 41. The CA denied reconsideration in its November 5, 2002 resolution.
Petitioner elevated the case to this Court by a Petition for Review under Rule 45, assailing the CA Decision of February 28, 2002 and the November 5, 2002 Resolution. The case was submitted for resolution to this Court on September 10, 2003 and was decided August 11, 2004.
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s order granting respondents’ motions to dismiss?
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain Madrigal’s petition for certiorari, or should the controversy have been raised by appeal (or by a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)