G.R. No. 95533 - Republic vs. Court of Appeals

On December 28, 1988, the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) filed a complaint for escheat with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City against several banks within its jurisdiction.
The complaint was based on Act No. 3936 as amended by P.D. 679 (the "Unclaimed Balances Law"), which requires banks to submit sworn statements listing deposits and credits held in favor of depositors or creditors who are either known to be dead, unaccounted for, or inactive for ten years or more since December 31, 1970.

The original complaint lacked specific allegations that the defendant banks had complied with two conditions mandated by Section 2 of Act No. 3936, conditions that were crucial for the complaint's sustenance.
On April 12, 1989, the RTC ordered the petitioner to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Responding to this, on April 27, 1989, the petitioner filed a manifestation and motion to amend the petition to include allegations of compliance with the required conditions.
The amended complaint specifically prayed that the amount of P97,263.38, deemed unclaimed deposits or credits (by virtue of depositors being dead or inactive), be escheated to the government.

The RTC, finding the amended petition sufficient, issued an order on June 7, 1989, which required the petitioner to publish a notice in the Mindanao Forum Standard once a week for two consecutive weeks.
The publication was to include the summons to the banks, a notice to the public, the amended petition, and a detailed list of unclaimed balances—an action estimated to incur costs of P50,000.00 and span 27 pages.
On July 11, 1989, the petitioner moved for the dispensation of publishing the list of unclaimed balances, arguing that only the summons and notice to persons other than the banks were required by Section 3 of the law, thereby avoiding unnecessary governmental expense.

On August 1, 1989, the RTC issued an order stating that the publication of the list of unclaimed balances would not be dispensed with unless the petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, agreed in writing to shoulder the associated cost within thirty (30) days.
Failing to comply with this requirement, the RTC later, on October 31, 1989, dismissed Civil Case No. 19488-89 without prejudice.

The petitioner, receiving the dismissal order on November 15, 1989, filed a petition for mandamus and certiorari with the Court of Appeals on January 10, 1990, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC judge for mandating the publication of the unclaimed balances.
The petition raised issues regarding the jurisdictional and procedural propriety of the RTC’s orders as well as whether such orders contravened the statutory provisions of the Unclaimed Balances Law.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the grounds that the proper and plain remedy was a timely ordinary appeal, noting that the dismissal order was final and appealable.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising issues of alleged grave abuse of discretion and improper exercise of jurisdiction by the RTC.

Whether the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the publication of the list of unclaimed balances, arguably an act tantamount to lacking jurisdiction.

The petitioner contended that the mandatory publication, which included an extensive list of unclaimed balances, imposed an unnecessary financial burden on the government.
It was questioned whether such a publication requirement was a proper interpretation of Section 3 of the Unclaimed Balances Law.

Whether the remedy of ordinary appeal was plain, speedy, and adequate, thereby disqualifying the use of the extraordinary remedies (certiorari and mandamus) filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that the only issue raised was one of jurisdiction, which, if correct, should void any appeal.
The Court of Appeals, however, maintained that an ordinary appeal was available and the petitioner’s failure to file within the prescribed period rendered the petition for certiorari moot.

Whether the RTC judge’s issuance of interlocutory orders (those dated June 7, 1989 and August 1, 1989), as well as the subsequent dismissal order dated October 31, 1989, acted in excess of and without jurisdiction.

This issue involved whether the lower court’s procedural requirements conformed to the statutory mandates of the Unclaimed Balances Law.
It questioned if such orders were properly final and appealable, notwithstanding their “without prejudice” designation.

Whether the Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss the petition for certiorari on the grounds of the existence of an available remedy (the ordinary appeal) was in accord with law.

Underlying this is the contention regarding the proper scope of judicial review and the limits of the certiorari remedy.
The adequacy of the appeal period (15 days) and the implications of missing that deadline were also at issue.