Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) unloaded some of its branch site holdings to Tala Realty Services Corporation (Tala Realty) in 1979. Tala Realty was organized by major stockholders of Banco Filipino to serve as a corporate medium to warehouse legal title of properties for Banco Filipino's beneficial interest. Banco Filipino sold four lots in Iloilo City to Tala Realty and then leased them back under similar terms as other branch sites sold to Tala Realty. In August 1992, Tala Realty demanded increased rentals and threatened ejectment. Subsequently, some Banco Filipino stockholders filed a derivative suit against Tala Realty before the SEC for reconveyance, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Tala Realty then filed ejectment suits against Banco Filipino. 2. Procedural History: In response to Tala Realty's ejectment suits, Banco Filipino filed an action for recovery of real properties before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo, Branch 28, on August 16, 1995, alleging breach of trust. This was one of sixteen similar complaints filed by Banco Filipino for properties previously sold to Tala Realty. Tala Realty and other respondents filed motions to dismiss the Iloilo case on grounds including forum-shopping, litis pendentia, and failure to state a cause of action. The RTC granted these motions and dismissed the complaint on April 22, 1996. Banco Filipino's motion for reconsideration was denied. Instead of filing an appeal, Banco Filipino filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed Banco Filipino's petition, ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy and that the RTC's decision was not rendered with grave abuse of discretion. Banco Filipino's motion for reconsideration of the CA's decision was also denied. Banco Filipino then filed the instant petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Banco Filipino filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petition argues that the CA gravely abused its discretion in failing to correct the RTC's dismissal order, which allegedly disregarded constitutional prescriptions on judgments and denied Banco Filipino due process. It also contends that Banco Filipino was denied the opportunity to prove its cause of action for implied trust, and that the CA erred in ruling that a writ of error was the proper remedy instead of certiorari. Furthermore, it claims the CA gravely abused its discretion in finding Banco Filipino guilty of splitting causes of action. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, holding that Banco Filipino's proper remedy was an ordinary appeal under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as there was no grave abuse of discretion and the remedy of appeal was available and adequate. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lapsed or lost remedy of appeal, especially when filed beyond the reglementary period without sufficient justification.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy when an ordinary appeal is available, and whether certiorari can be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Whether the dismissal of the case by the RTC and the CA's affirmation thereof deprived Banco Filipino of due process and the opportunity to prove its cause of action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It held that Banco Filipino's proper remedy from the adverse resolutions of the Court of Appeals was an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court via a petition for review under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals, and emphasized that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lapsed or lost remedy of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, Banco Filipino had an available remedy of appeal via a petition for review under Rule 45 from the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found no patent and gross abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals, which had painstakingly explained its rationale. Therefore, the Court of Appeals' resolutions could only be assailed by a petition for review, not by certiorari. On the availability of appeal as a remedy and certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal: The Court stressed that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Banco Filipino's failure to file a timely appeal from the Court of Appeals' decision foreclosed its right to resort to a petition for certiorari. The Court noted that Banco Filipino admitted that the Court of Appeals "labored to defend in thirty-three (33) [single spaced] pages" the rationale behind its decision, indicating that the issues could have been properly raised and addressed in an appeal. The claim that an appeal is not speedy and adequate was deemed insufficient to justify the resort to certiorari. The Court firmly stated that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lapsed or lost remedy of appeal. Banco Filipino's recourse to a special civil action for certiorari was seen as a consequence of its failure to file a timely appeal. The Court pointed out that Banco Filipino filed its petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals fourteen (14) days after the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, and its petition before the Supreme Court was filed forty-five (45) days after the reglementary period for filing an appeal had ended. The Court emphasized that the timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional caveat that cannot be trifled with, and that there were no exceptional circumstances presented to justify a deviation from this stringent rule. On the issue of due process: The provided text does not contain any ratio decidendi explicitly addressing whether the dismissal deprived Banco Filipino of due process. Therefore, no corresponding ratio can be provided for this issue based on the given text.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost or lapsed appeal. The availability of an ordinary appeal via a petition for review under Rule 45 precludes the filing of a certiorari petition, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.