[70] PBCOM v.

CA (Hernandez) Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the Complaint alleging that
Feb 15, 2017| Caguioa| Appeals their obligation had already been paid in full and that the RTC had no jurisdiction
over the case because PBCOM failed to pay the correct docket fees.
PETITIONER: PBCOM
RESPONDENTS: CA On September 29, 2010, the RTC issued an Order directing PBCOM to pay
additional docket fees in the amount of P24,765.70, within fifteen days from receipt
FACTS: of thereof.
PBCOM filed a collection suit against private respondents. The RTC directed
PBCOM to pay additional docket fees. While PBCOM paid the additional fees, On October 21, 2010, PBCOM paid the additional docket fees but filed its
it belatedly filed its compliance. Thus, the RTC issued an Order dismissing Compliance with the RTC only on November 11, 2010.
PBCOM's Complaint. PBCOM filed a Notice of Appeal which was denied due
course by the RTC on the ground that it was not the proper remedy. In the interim, however, the RTC issued an Order dated November 4, 2010,
dismissing PBCOM's Complaint.
Thus, PBCOM filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA which PBCOM filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated November 22, 2010,
denied the same. Again, PBCOM filed a Petition for Certiorari, this time, against stating that it had paid the additional docket fees within the period prescribed by the
the CA. court as evidenced by the Official Receipt attached thereto.

ISSUE: In an Order dated May 3, 2011, the RTC denied PBCOM's motion for
Whether or not the RTC was correct in denying due course to PBCOM’s Notice reconsideration.
of Appeal
Undaunted, PBCOM timely filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 26, 2011.
RULING:
On June 2, 2011, the RTC issued an Assailed Order, denying due course to
NO. At the onset, the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of PBCOM's Notice of Appeal on the ground that said appeal is not the proper remedy.
the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar
to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, under Without filing a motion for reconsideration, PBCOM filed a Petition for
exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the rules will result Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA.
in manifest injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities and proceed with the
appeal. Considering that what is at stake in the present case is PBCOM's On July 31, 2014, the CA issued the assailed Decision denying PBCOM's
statutory right to appeal and the amplest opportunity for the proper and just Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and affirming the order of the RTC, with a
determination of its cause, the Court resolves to set aside PBCOM' s procedural reason that, apart from availing itself of a wrong mode of appeal, PBCOM failed to
mistake and give due course to its petition. comply with the mandatory requirement of a motion for reconsideration. The CA
The Supreme Court held that the RTC erred in denying due course to the Notice emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non
of Appeal. The power of the RTC to dismiss an appeal is limited to the instances for a petition for certiorari to prosper.
specified in the afore-quoted provision. In other words, the RTC has no
jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground - such as On August 26, 2014, PBCOM filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
"that an appeal is not a proper remedy." The authority to dismiss an appeal for aforesaid Decision, but the same was denied by the CA for having been filed out of
being an improper remedy is specifically vested upon the CA and not the RTC, time.
pursuant to Rule 50, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:

FACTS: 1. Whether respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
This Complaint for collection of a sum of money in the amount of denied PBCOM's motion for reconsideration on the ground that it
P8,971,118.06 was filed by PBCOM against private respondents before the RTC of was filed one (1) day late.
Makati City, Branch 56 and docketed as Civil Case No. 10-185.
 2. Whether respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of commission of a grave injustice. Our judicial system and the courts have always tried
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and
denied PBCOM's petition for certiorari and mandamus on the the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just and proper
ground that a prior motion for reconsideration is required. disposition of his cause.

Citing the Sebastian v. Morales, the Court rules that rules of procedure must be
3. Whether respondent Judge should be compelled by mandamus to faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to
approve PBCOM's notice of appeal and to transmit the case relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the
records to the Court of Appeals. prescribed procedure, thus:

4. Whether respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion The Court has allowed some meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent
when it ruled that the petition for certiorari and mandamus is a wrong mode of procedural defects and lapses. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of
appeal. procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict
and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided. It is a far
RULING: better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and
afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose
The Court notes that PBCOM availed of the wrong mode of appeal in bringing the of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
case before the Court. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a
remedy to assail the July 31, 2014 Decision and May 5, 2015 Resolution of the CA. miscarriage of justice.
In Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc. the Court held that: Considering that what is at stake in the present case is PBCOM's statutory right to
appeal and the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of its cause,
The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a the Court resolves to set aside PBCOM's procedural mistake and give due course to
petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari its petition.
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., The Court finds PBCOM's arguments impressed with merit.
regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us
by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate In the assailed Decision, the CA appears to have confused the RTC Order dismissing
process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 PBCOM's complaint with the RTC Order denying PBCOM's notice of appeal, and
is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a mistakenly ruled that the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by PBCOM was
general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary a wrong mode of appeal.
appeal, including that under Rule 45. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper
remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright. Records will bear that the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for sum of money
However, under exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the rules was grounded on private respondents' [petitioner] failure to timely comply with the
will result in manifest injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities and proceed order dated 29 September 2010 of the public respondent which is pursuant to Section
with the appeal. Citing the case of Tanenglian v. Lorenzo, the Court recognized the 3 Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.
broader interest of justice and gave due course to the appeal even if it was a wrong
mode of appeal and was even filed beyond the reglementary period provided by the Section 3 Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides that:
rules. The Court reasoned that:
"Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff
We have not been oblivious to or unmindful of the extraordinary situations that fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the
merit liberal application of the Rules, allowing us, depending on the circumstances, complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply
to set aside technical infirmities and give due course to the appeal. In cases where with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon
we dispense with the technicalities, we do not mean to undermine the force and motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the
effectivity of the periods set by law. In those rare cases where we did not stringently right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate
apply the procedural rules, there always existed a clear need to prevent the action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
otherwise declared by the court." 120884, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
In Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, the Court ruled that a Trial Court's order disallowing a
notice of appeal, which is tantamount to a disallowance or dismissal of the appeal The Regional Trial Court, Branch 56 in Makati City
itself, is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken. The is DIRECTED to give due course to petitioner's Notice
suitable remedy for the aggrieved party is to elevate the matter through a special civil
action under Rule 65. Clearly, contrary to the CA's finding, PBCOM availed itself of
of Appeal dated May 26, 2011 and to elevate the case
the correct remedy in questioning the disallowance of its notice of appeal. records to the Court of Appeals for the review of
petitioner's appeal. No costs.
Rule 41, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure states:

SEC. 13. Dismissal of appeal. - Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the
record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may, motu proprio or on
motion, dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time or for non-payment of
the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period.
In Salvan v. People, the Court held that the power of the RTC to dismiss an appeal is
limited to the instances specified in the afore-quoted provision. In other words, the
RTC has no jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground -
such as "that an appeal is not a proper remedy."

The authority to dismiss an appeal for being an improper remedy is specifically

vested upon the CA and not the RTC. Rule 50, Section 1 of the same Rules states:

SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - An appeal may be dismissed by the

Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee.
Dismissals of appeal may also be had upon the grounds specified by Rule 50 of the
Rules of Court; but it is the Court of Appeals, not the Trial Court, which is explicitly
authorized to dismiss appeals on said grounds. Generally, these grounds do not
include matters which go into the merits of the cause or to the right of the plaintiff or
defendant to recover. Case law has come to recognize other grounds for dismissal, by
way of exception, e.g., that the cause has become moot, or the appeal is frivolous or
manifestly dilatory. But, to repeat, authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that
it is frivolous or taken manifestly for delay "is not certainly with the court a quo
whose decision is an issue, but with the appellate court."
In fine, the assailed RTC Order, denying due course to PBCOM's notice of appeal on
the ground that it was a wrong remedy, is a patent nullity. The RTC acted without or
in excess of its jurisdiction.

RATIO:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.

The Order dated June 2, 2011 issued by the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 56 in Makati City and the assailed
Decision dated July 31, 2014 and Resolution dated May
5, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.