Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Philippine Commercial and International Bank
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Republic of the Philippines initiated a complaint for escheat against several banks, including Philippine Commercial and International Bank, seeking to claim deposits and credits that had remained inactive for ten years or more. This action was based on Act No. 3936, as amended by P.D. 679, which mandates banks to report such unclaimed balances to the Treasurer of the Philippines. The Republic sought a judgment to have these unclaimed amounts escheated to the government. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially questioned the complaint's sufficiency, prompting the Republic to amend it. The RTC then ordered the Republic to publish a notice, including the list of unclaimed balances, at significant expense. The Republic sought to dispense with the publication of the list, arguing it was unnecessary and costly. When the Republic refused to shoulder the publication costs, the RTC dismissed the case without prejudice. The Republic then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed this petition, ruling that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal from the dismissal order. 3. The Petition: Aggrieved by the CA's decision, the Republic filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petition questioned whether the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the publication of the unclaimed balances, whether appeal was the adequate remedy, and whether the RTC's orders were issued in excess of jurisdiction. The Republic argued that the publication requirement was contrary to the Unclaimed Balances Law and that the dismissal orders were therefore void. The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision that the dismissal order was final and appealable, and that certiorari was not the proper remedy after the lapse of the reglementary period for appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the publication of the list of unclaimed balances. Whether the remedy of appeal, though available, was the speedy and adequate remedy. Whether the respondent RTC judge, in issuing interlocutory orders contrary to Section 1 of Act 3936, acted in excess of and without jurisdiction, making subsequent orders dismissing the case void. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals is in accordance with law.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The dismissal order of the RTC, though without prejudice, was a final order disposing of the case, and the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal within the reglementary period. Certiorari and mandamus were not proper remedies as an adequate remedy by appeal existed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that the RTC's order dismissing the complaint, even if without prejudice, was a final order that finally disposed of the case. As such, the petitioner's remedy was to file an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals within the fifteen-day reglementary period. The Court reiterated that an order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order if no motion for reconsideration or appeal is timely filed, citing Olympia International vs. Court of Appeals. The special civil action of certiorari is a remedy of last resort and is available only in the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy like appeal. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal or to correct errors of judgment or procedure. The petition for certiorari and mandamus was therefore correctly dismissed by the Court of Appeals. On the availability of appeal as a speedy and adequate remedy: The Court affirmed that an ordinary appeal is the proper and adequate remedy for a final order of dismissal. The law grants a party fifteen (15) days from receipt of a court's decision or order disposing of the action to appeal or move for reconsideration. After this period lapses, the order becomes final and executory. The petitioner failed to avail of this remedy within the reglementary period, thus losing its right to appeal. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot be used to correct errors of judgment or procedure, which could have been raised on appeal. On whether the RTC judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and the voidity of subsequent orders: The Court found no compelling reason to treat the petition for certiorari and mandamus as an ordinary appeal. The petition was filed beyond the fifteen-day period for appeal, and it failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion or want or excess of jurisdiction. Any perceived mistake in the RTC's orders was considered an error of judgment or procedure, correctible by ordinary appeal. The Court also noted that the publication of the list of unclaimed balances is intended to safeguard the right of depositors and their heirs to due process, as explained by the trial court. On whether the CA decision is in accordance with law: The Court found the CA decision to be in accordance with law. The CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus on the ground that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal. The RTC's dismissal order was final, and the petitioner's failure to appeal within the reglementary period rendered it final and executory. The CA correctly applied the principle that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Supreme Court reiterated that prescription of action does not run against the government, meaning the State can refile the escheat petition despite the dismissal without prejudice.
Main Doctrine
A dismissal order, even if without prejudice, is a final order that finally disposes of the case, making an ordinary appeal the proper remedy, not a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.