Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank (PCIB) contracted respondent William Golangco Construction Corporation (WGCC) to construct the 5th to 21st floors of PCIB Tower II. PCIB alleged that the granite finish of the tower was defective and that after hiring another contractor to redo the work, WGCC refused to pay the actual damages incurred. PCIB consequently filed a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), docketed as CIAC Case No. 07-95, seeking damages for construction deficiencies. WGCC denied the claims, asserting faithful performance and acceptance by PCIB after inspection, and counterclaimed for an unpaid material cost adjustment due to substantial price increases. Procedural History: The CIAC, in a Decision dated June 21, 1996, awarded PCIB P9,741,829.00 for repair costs and P5,777,157.84 to WGCC for material cost adjustments, resulting in a net award of P3,964,671.16 to PCIB. PCIB filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which is not allowed under CIAC rules. Subsequently, PCIB filed a petition for "Certiorari and/or Partial Review" with the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 12, 1996, alleging that the CIAC acted with excess of jurisdiction. WGCC moved to dismiss the petition, asserting it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period, as PCIB received the CIAC decision on June 24, 1996, making the July 12 filing three days late. The CA granted WGCC's motion, dismissing PCIB's petition. PCIB's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner PCIB assails the CA's Resolution through a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, arguing that the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing its petition. PCIB contends that its petition before the CA was seasonably filed, as its counsel only gained actual knowledge of the CIAC decision on June 28, 1996, when PCIB sent him a copy. PCIB further argues that the CA erred in holding that a petition for certiorari and a petition for review cannot be combined. The Supreme Court, however, notes that the CIAC Rules mandate notification of the parties, not necessarily their counsel, and that PCIB admittedly received the decision on June 24, 1996. The Court emphasizes that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court also points out that PCIB should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45, not certiorari and mandamus, and even if treated as such, PCIB failed to present meritorious grounds.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing PCIB's petition for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in refusing to allow PCIB's alternative reliefs for review and/or certiorari.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals correctly granted the motion to dismiss filed by WGCC because PCIB's petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. The issue of the CA's refusal to allow alternative reliefs was rendered unnecessary by the dismissal of the petition on procedural grounds.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Belated Filing: The Court reiterated the elementary rule that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the questioned decision final and executory, thereby depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the judgment. In this case, PCIB admitted that it received a copy of the CIAC decision on June 24, 1996, through Engineer Nuno. The CIAC Rules of Procedure mandate that the "parties" are to be notified of the "text" of the decision. Therefore, the service on PCIB itself was valid. PCIB's counsel's claim that service should have been made upon him, and that the period should only commence from his actual knowledge, was unavailing. The CIAC Rules do not contain a provision similar to the Rules of Court requiring service on counsel when a party is represented. Consequently, the petition filed before the CA on July 12, 1996, was indeed filed beyond the reglementary period, which expired on July 9, 1996. The CA's dismissal of the petition on this ground was therefore correct. On the Issue of Alternative Reliefs: The Court found it unnecessary to pass upon PCIB's plaint regarding the CA's refusal to allow alternative reliefs. This is because the petition was already dismissed on the ground of belated filing, meaning the CA never acquired jurisdiction to review the merits of the case. The Court emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. PCIB's failure to file a timely appeal meant that the CIAC decision had become final and executory, and the CA correctly dismissed its petition.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the decision final and executory, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction. Certiorari and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies.