Title
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 95533
Decision Date
Nov 20, 2000
The Republic sought escheat of unclaimed bank balances; RTC required publication for due process. Dismissal upheld; certiorari denied as appeal was proper remedy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 95533)

Complaint for Escheat

On December 28, 1988, the Republic filed a complaint for escheat with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City against several banks. The complaint claimed that these banks submitted statements to the Treasurer of the Republic regarding deposits held on behalf of deceased depositors or those who had not conducted transactions for over ten years, as stipulated in Act No. 3936, amended by P.D. 679.

Initial Court Proceedings

On April 12, 1989, the trial court directed the petitioner to show cause for the complaint’s dismissal due to failure to sufficiently allege compliance with required conditions of the law. Subsequently, on April 27, 1989, the petitioner filed an amended complaint that detailed compliance with the specified conditions and sought for specific unclaimed amounts, totaling P97,263.38, to be escheated in favor of the Republic.

Publication Order Controversy

The trial court, on June 7, 1989, ordered the publication of the amended complaint, including a list of unclaimed balances. The estimated cost for the publication was around P50,000. On July 11, 1989, the petitioner requested to dispense with this publication, arguing that only summons and notice to other persons were mandated, leading to another order on August 1, 1989, where the trial court upheld its previous requirement for publication, stating that failure to comply would lead to case dismissal without prejudice.

Dismissal of the Case

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the trial court ultimately dismissed the case on October 31, 1989, due to non-compliance with the publication order. Following the dismissal, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals on January 10, 1990, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for an ordinary appeal as the appropriate remedy, citing that an extraordinary remedy like certiorari is only available when no adequate remedy in ordinary law exists. It noted that the lower court’s dismissal constituted a final and appealable order.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the trial court's dismissal without prejudice was a final order. It clarified that an aggrieved party has fifteen days from receipt of such an order to appeal. The Supreme Court underscored that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal and that any perceived errors in the trial court's procedure were correctable t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.