Case Summary (G.R. No. 218901)
Dismissal of Complaint
On September 29, 2010, the RTC directed PBCOM to pay an additional ₱24,765.70 within 15 days. Payment was made on October 21, but compliance was filed only on November 11. Citing Rule 17 §3, the court dismissed the complaint on November 4 for failure to comply timely.
Post-Dismissal Proceedings
PBCOM’s November 22 motion for reconsideration argued timely payment; RTC denied it on May 3, 2011, finding no proof of compliance within the reglementary period and questioning the validity of the receipt.
Notice of Appeal Denial
PBCOM filed a Notice of Appeal on May 26, 2011. On June 2, 2011, the RTC denied due course, holding that appeal was not the proper remedy.
CA Proceedings and Ruling
PBCOM filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CA to compel approval of its Notice of Appeal and transmission of records. On July 31, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition, ruling that (a) certiorari is the wrong mode of appeal against a dismissal on the merits, and (b) PBCOM failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s June 2 order. A motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied as late.
Issues on Mode of Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration
PBCOM contended that the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s denial of its Notice of Appeal was certiorari, since the order was a patent nullity issued without jurisdiction. The CA countered that Rule 65 requires a prior motion for reconsideration and that an appeal under Rule 65 is inappropriate.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court held:
- Although PBCOM initially adopted a wrong mode of appeal (Rule 65 instead of Rule 45), the Court may relax technicalities to prevent manifest injustice.
- The RTC’s denial of an appeal on the ground that “appeal is not the proper remedy” exceeded its jurisdiction under Rule 41 §13, which limits dismissal of appeals to late filing or non-payment of fees. Only the CA may dismiss appeals on other grounds per Rule 50 §1.
- The RTC order was a patent nullity, obviating the need for a mot
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 218901)
Facts and Origin of the Dispute
- Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) filed a Complaint for Collection of Money in the amount of ₱ 8,971,118.06 against private respondents before RTC Makati, Branch 56 (Civil Case No. 10-185).
- Private respondents countered with a motion to dismiss, alleging (a) full payment of the obligation and (b) lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient docket fees paid by PBCOM.
- On September 29, 2010, the RTC ordered PBCOM to pay ₱ 24,765.70 additional docket fees within 15 days.
- PBCOM paid on October 21, 2010, but filed its Compliance only on November 11, 2010.
RTC’s Dismissal of the Complaint
- On November 4, 2010, the RTC dismissed PBCOM’s complaint for failure to comply with the September 29 Order.
- PBCOM moved for reconsideration on November 22, 2010, attaching an Official Receipt as proof of payment.
- The RTC denied reconsideration on May 3, 2011, finding no proof of payment before October 23, 2010, and casting doubt on the authenticity of the Official Receipt.
PBCOM’s Notice of Appeal and RTC’s Assailed Order
- PBCOM filed a Notice of Appeal on May 26, 2011, from the denial of its motion for reconsideration.
- On June 2, 2011, the RTC issued an Order denying due course to PBCOM’s Notice of Appeal on the ground that “an appeal is not the proper remedy,” without invoking Rule 41, Sec. 13 grounds.
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus Before the Court of Appeals
- PBCOM directly elevated the June 2, 2011 RTC Order via a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 120884).
- The CA denied the petition on July 31, 2014, holding:
- A petition for certiorari is