G.R. No. L-10525 - Casilan vs. Gancayco

Ask AI

G.R. No. L-10525: Casilan vs. Gancayco

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: Sevilleno vs. Carilo

Case: G.R. No. 146454

Decision Date: Sep 14, 2007

Petitioners filed a damages case dismissed by RTC for lack of jurisdiction. CA dismissed appeal as wrong mode; SC affirmed, stating appeal should have been directly to SC under Rule 45.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-10525)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background of the Case

Petitioners Pamela S. Sevilleno and Purita S. Sevilleno filed a complaint for damages against respondents Pacita Carilo and Camelo Carilo.
The complaint was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82, Quezon City, under Civil Case No. Q-35895.
The petitioners claimed damages as follows:

P5,000.00 in actual damages;
P400,000.00 in moral damages;
P10,000.00 in exemplary damages;
P50,000.00 for attorney’s fees.

Procedural History at the RTC

Respondents filed an answer with a compulsory counterclaim, requesting the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action.
On March 23, 1999, the RTC issued an order, on its own motion (motu proprio), dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on May 18, 1999.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioners elevated the case through an appeal to the Court of Appeals despite the nature of the issue.
The Court of Appeals held that the central issue was the jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter—a question of law.
Citing the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the appellate court noted that:

Section 2, Rule 41 allows an ordinary appeal from decisions rendered by the RTC in its original jurisdiction when the issues involve questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law;
However, when the issue is purely a question of law, the appropriate remedy is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the Court of Appeals referenced Section 2, Rule 50, which mandates the dismissal of an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals when only questions of law are involved.

Legal Arguments and Precedents

The petitioners’ mode of appeal was challenged on the basis that it did not follow the proper procedural route for cases involving a pure question of law.
The Court referred to the case of Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals for a summary of the proper appeal process:

Ordinary appeal suffices when questions of fact or mixed questions are at issue;
When solely questions of law are raised, the appeal must be made directly to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.

The principles that a court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred strictly by the Constitution or statute, and is thus a question of law, were emphasized with reference to prior jurisprudence (De Jesus v. Garcia and Calimlim, et al. v. Ramirez, et al.).

Issues:

Mode of Appeal and Jurisdiction

Whether the appeal filed by the petitioners was the correct procedural remedy given that the central issue involves the jurisdiction of the RTC, which is inherently a question of law.
Whether an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals is appropriate when the issue raised is solely one of jurisdiction (a pure question of law), or if a petition for review on certiorari should have been filed directly to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END