Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondents, Spouses Leonardo and Mercedes Yap, filed a complaint against petitioner, Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc., for Annulment and/or Reformation of Contract with Damages. The dispute stemmed from a Dacion En Pago with Lease-Purchase Agreement which contained a stipulation that any action arising from it must be filed exclusively in the municipal or regional trial courts in Bacolod City. 2. Procedural History: The Spouses Yap filed their complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City. Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing improper venue based on the stipulation in the contract. The trial court granted this motion. The Spouses Yap then filed an Omnibus Motion to Admit Complaint and for Reconsideration, attaching an Amended Complaint, which the trial court denied. Subsequently, the Spouses Yap filed a notice of appeal and their Appellants' Brief with the Court of Appeals. Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. then filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals, asserting that the appeal involved purely questions of law and thus should have been filed with the Supreme Court under Rule 45. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for certiorari filed by Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. with the Supreme Court, assailing the Resolution of the Court of Appeals which denied its motion to dismiss the appeal and required it to file its brief as appellee. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction because the issues raised by the Spouses Yap in their appeal—whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for improper venue, in not admitting the Amended Complaint, and in disregarding the rule on hypothetical admissions—are purely questions of law. Petitioner contends that such appeals should have been filed directly with the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, as mandated by law and Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over a case involving purely questions of law; and whether the appeal filed by private respondents to the Court of Appeals was the proper mode of appeal.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated September 7, 1993 is SET ASIDE and the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 39966 is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appellate jurisdiction and the proper mode of appeal: The Supreme Court reiterated that appeals from judgments of the Regional Trial Court on pure questions of law must be taken to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. This is consistent with Section 5(2)(e), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 17(4) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by Republic Act No. 5440. The Court's Circular No. 2-90 further clarifies that except in criminal cases with life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, judgments of regional trial courts are appealed to the Supreme Court only by petition for review on certiorari. The issues raised by private respondents in their Appellants' Brief, namely, whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for improper venue, whether it erred in not admitting the Amended Complaint, and whether it violated the rule on hypothetical admissions, were all determined to be questions of law. The issue of improper venue is a question of law, as is the interpretation or application of rules regarding amendments of complaints. Furthermore, assailing the legal conclusions of the trial court regarding estoppel and the validity of the agreement also constitutes a question of law. Therefore, the appeal to the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal was the wrong mode of appeal. Pursuant to Section 4 of Circular No. 2-90, an appeal taken by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. The Court emphasized that private respondents, as appellants, are to blame for their mistaken choice of remedy.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from a Regional Trial Court decision involving purely questions of law to the Court of Appeals is an improper mode of appeal; the correct mode is a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. An appeal taken by the wrong mode shall be dismissed.