Buenbrazo v. Marave
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originates from a forcible entry dispute between Jose Abelardo (plaintiff) and Ignacio Buenbrazo (defendant). The City Court of Ozamiz City initially dismissed Abelardo's complaint and awarded attorney's fees to Buenbrazo. 2. Procedural History: Abelardo appealed the City Court's decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Occidental. The CFI affirmed the lower court's ruling. Subsequently, Abelardo filed a notice of appeal and a record on appeal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the CFI's factual findings lacked substantial evidence and its conclusions were contrary to law. Buenbrazo moved to dismiss this appeal, asserting it should have been filed directly with the Supreme Court under Section 45 of the Judiciary Law. The CFI denied Buenbrazo's motion, citing prior rulings that allowed petitions for review to the Court of Appeals in similar circumstances. 3. The Petition: Ignacio Buenbrazo filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the CFI's order that gave due course to Abelardo's appeal by record on appeal. Buenbrazo contends that under Section 45 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Act No. 6031, decisions of the CFI in cases originally cognizable by inferior courts are generally final, and any review must be sought through a petition for review or certiorari to the Supreme Court, not an ordinary appeal by record on appeal. The Supreme Court ultimately holds that the CFI erred in allowing the appeal by record on appeal, as such a mode of review is not permissible under the law for this type of case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in giving due course to Abelardo's appeal to the Court of Appeals by means of a record on appeal. Whether the decision of the Court of First Instance in a case exclusively cognizable by an inferior court, which was appealed to it, is final and executory.
Ruling
The Court held that the lower court erred in giving due course to Abelardo's appeal to the Court of Appeals by means of a record on appeal. The Court set aside the lower court's order of May 7, 1975, giving due course to the appeal by record on appeal and granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition. The lower court's decision is considered final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of First Instance erred in giving due course to Abelardo's appeal to the Court of Appeals by means of a record on appeal: The Court held that the lower court erred in giving due course to Abelardo's appeal to the Court of Appeals by means of a record on appeal. The applicable rule is Section 45 of the Judiciary Law, not Section 29. Under the third paragraph of Section 45, as amended by Republic Act No. 6031, the decision of the Court of First Instance in cases falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal and city courts, which are appealed to it, is generally final or unappealable. This finality is subject to the condition that the findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions are not clearly against the law and jurisprudence. The review provided for in Section 45 is not a matter of right and cannot be made through an ordinary appeal or by record on appeal. An appeal by record on appeal presupposes that the appeal is a matter of right, whereas a petition for review or certiorari means the appellate court has discretion to reject the appeal. Therefore, Abelardo could not appeal by record on appeal. On whether the decision of the Court of First Instance in a case exclusively cognizable by an inferior court, which was appealed to it, is final and executory: The Court ruled that the decision of the Court of First Instance in this case should be considered final and executory. This is because the proper mode of review for such decisions is not an ordinary appeal by record on appeal, and the period for securing a review by the appropriate method (petition for review or certiorari) had already expired. The Court emphasized that the abolition of appeal by record on appeal to the Supreme Court by Republic Act No. 5440, effective September 9, 1968, and the nature of review under Section 45 of the Judiciary Law as amended by Republic Act No. 6031 (effective August 4, 1969) should be known to the bench and bar. The lower court's order giving due course to Abelardo's appeal by record on appeal was erroneous, rendering the decision final and executory.
Main Doctrine
An ordinary appeal by record on appeal is not the proper mode of review for decisions of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by inferior courts, as such review is not a matter of right and requires a petition for review or certiorari.