G.R. No. 218901 - Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Court of Appeals

Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) filed a Complaint for collection of ₱8,971,118.06 against Traveler Kids Inc., Cely L. Gabaldon-Co and Jeannie L. Lugmoc in RTC Makati, Branch 56 (Civil Case No. 10-185).
Private respondents moved to dismiss, alleging (a) full payment of their obligation and (b) lack of jurisdiction because PBCOM failed to pay correct docket fees.

On September 29, 2010, the RTC ordered PBCOM to pay additional docket fees of ₱24,765.70 within 15 days. PBCOM paid on October 21, 2010 but filed proof of compliance only on November 11, 2010.
On November 4, 2010, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with the September 29 order.
PBCOM filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 22, 2010. In an Order dated May 3, 2011, the RTC denied reconsideration, ruling PBCOM did not submit proof of payment within the reglementary period and casting doubt on the receipt’s regularity.
On May 26, 2011, PBCOM filed a Notice of Appeal. On June 2, 2011, the RTC denied due course to the Notice of Appeal, holding that an appeal was not the proper remedy.
PBCOM filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). On July 31, 2014, the CA denied the petition, ruling (a) certiorari was a wrong mode of appeal and (b) PBCOM failed to file a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied as late. PBCOM then filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court.

Did the CA gravely abuse its discretion in denying PBCOM’s CA motion for reconsideration as one day late?
Did the CA gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing PBCOM’s petition for certiorari and mandamus for lack of a prior motion for reconsideration?
Should mandamus issue to compel the RTC judge to approve PBCOM’s Notice of Appeal and transmit the records?
Did the CA gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that certiorari and mandamus was a wrong mode of appeal?