Diaz v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. (DLPC) applied with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) for the approval of the sound value appraisal of its property and equipment in service, which was valued by Asian Appraisal Company at P1,141,774,000.00 as of March 12, 1990. The ERB approved the application on December 6, 1992, after deducting P14,800,000.00 worth of property and equipment not used in DLPC's operations. Procedural History: Petitioners Antonio Diaz and Kosumo Dabaw filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 6, 1992, assailing the ERB's decision on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated September 8, 1992, referred the case to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the petition, citing the incorrect mode of appeal to the Supreme Court and non-compliance with Supreme Court Circular 1-88. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on March 24, 1993. The Petition: Petitioners filed the instant recourse, a petition for review, with the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their petition and that the Supreme Court's resolution of September 8, 1992, directed the Court of Appeals to disregard procedural circulars. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, reiterating that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the case due to the wrong mode of appeal and non-compliance with Supreme Court Circulars 1-88 and 2-90, which mandate dismissal for appeals taken by the wrong procedure and prohibit the transfer of erroneously filed appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court's resolution referring the case to the Court of Appeals constituted a directive to disregard existing circulars and precedents regarding the proper mode of appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground of wrong mode of appeal and non-compliance with procedural rules.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review filed with the Supreme Court, as the proper mode of appeal from the Energy Regulatory Board is a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, in accordance with Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Supreme Court's resolution referring the case to the Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court's resolution of September 8, 1992, referring the case to the Court of Appeals for further disposition, was not a directive for the Court of Appeals to disregard existing circulars and precedents. Instead, it meant that the Court of Appeals should dispose of the petition in conformity with, and not in violation of, those circulars and precedents. The Court emphasized that lawyers are expected to keep themselves abreast with the decisions and circulars of the Supreme Court relating to procedure. The purpose of Supreme Court Circular No. 1-88 was to compel strict observance of the Revised Rules of Court to prevent needless delays in proceedings before the Court. Therefore, the referral was meant to ensure proper procedural adherence, not to waive it. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition: The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The proper mode of appeal from any quasi-judicial agency, including the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), is by way of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, as specifically provided in paragraph (1) of Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91, promulgated on February 27, 1991. Prior to Circular No. 1-91, Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90, dated March 9, 1990, already stated that an appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. Furthermore, paragraph (d) of Circular No. 2-90 explicitly prohibited the transfer of appeals erroneously taken to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals to whichever tribunal has appropriate appellate jurisdiction, stating that continued ignorance or willful disregard of the law on appeals would not be tolerated. Thus, the Court of Appeals acted in accordance with established rules and jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review filed with the Supreme Court when the proper mode of appeal is by way of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals shall be dismissed. The Supreme Court will not transfer erroneously filed appeals.