Kho v. Camacho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Narciso Kho issued six postdated checks totaling P57,349.00 to Atty. Manuel Camacho for attorney's fees. One check for P10,000.00 was lost by Camacho, and the other five were dishonored because the drawee bank, Manila Bank, was closed by the Central Bank. Kho refused to replace the checks, citing his substantial deposit in Manila Bank and the closure being beyond his control. Procedural History: Camacho filed an action for a sum of money. The trial court, per Judge Oscar Leviste, granted Camacho's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ordering Kho to pay P47,349.00 plus interest and costs. Kho seasonably filed a notice of appeal, which was initially approved by the respondent judge. However, Camacho filed a motion/manifestation to strike off the notice of appeal. Respondent Judge Leviste then issued an order cancelling the previous approval and disapproving the notice of appeal, opining that the proper remedy from a judgment on the pleadings was a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, as only questions of law were involved. The Petition: Kho filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the order of respondent Judge Leviste which cancelled the approval of his notice of appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Oscar L. Leviste gravely abused his discretion in cancelling the order approving petitioner's notice of appeal and disapproving the same. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the appeal involved only questions of law and whether the judgment on the pleadings was proper.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DENIED. The order of March 29, 1988, cancelling the approval of the notice of appeal and disapproving the same is set aside. The judgment on the pleadings rendered by the respondent Judge on February 12, 1988, is affirmed as the final adjudication on the respective rights of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the trial court's authority to disapprove the notice of appeal: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in cancelling the approval of the notice of appeal and disapproving it. Citing E. Razon, Inc. vs. Judge Moya and PNB vs. Romillo, Jr., the Court emphasized that Rule 41 of the Rules of Court does not authorize a trial court to disallow an appeal on the ground that it involves only a question of law. This determination is the prerogative of the appellate court. The trial court's role is to approve or disapprove the record on appeal (when required) and the appeal bond, but not the notice of appeal itself, which does not require trial court approval. The judge should have sustained his approval of the notice of appeal and left it to the Court of Appeals to certify the case to the proper tribunal if warranted. The Court further noted that the judge erred in believing that only questions of law were involved, thus pre-empting the appellate court's jurisdiction. The Court also pointed out that the judge could not distinguish between a petition for certiorari and a petition for review on certiorari. On the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings: Despite the procedural error in disapproving the notice of appeal, the Court found that requiring the appeal to be given due course would serve no useful purpose and would only delay the resolution of an otherwise open-and-shut case. The records were sufficient to rule on the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings. The Court found that petitioner's answer failed to tender a genuine issue. Kho admitted the obligation but disavowed responsibility to replace dishonored checks due to the bank's closure, which he considered beyond his control. This stance, essentially asking Camacho to wait until Kho could pay, was not a sufficient controversion of the material allegations in the complaint. Therefore, the judgment on the pleadings was proper and considered the final adjudication.
Main Doctrine
A trial court commits a grave abuse of discretion when it disallows an appeal based on its own determination of whether the appeal involves only questions of law, as this prerogative belongs to the appellate court. A notice of appeal does not require the approval of the trial court.