Mercado v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Armando V. Gatmaitan obtained loans totaling P850,000 from petitioner Eduardo S. Mercado for the renovation of conjugal properties. Armando agreed to lease the houses and remit rentals to Eduardo, but failed to do so. Concepcion Gatmaitan, Armando's wife, filed a complaint for separation and liquidation of conjugal properties. Eduardo sought to intervene as a creditor, but his motion was denied by Branch 149 of the RTC of Makati City on February 19, 1990. Eduardo claimed he did not immediately learn of the denial. The RTC rendered a decision in the main case on January 7, 1994, and its appeal was resolved by the Court of Appeals. Procedural History: On February 22, 1999, Eduardo filed a Motion for Early Resolution of his intervention motion with Branch 140 of the RTC. He was informed that the main case had been decided and appealed. Branch 140 denied his motion on September 27, 1999, noting the prior dismissal by Branch 149 without a motion for reconsideration. Eduardo's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on October 27, 1999. He then filed a Petition for Relief, alleging denial of due process and fraud, claiming he never received a copy of the September 27, 1999 order, though he admitted receiving an order dated February 19, 1990. The RTC denied his Petition for Relief on April 6, 2000. His motion for reconsideration of this denial was denied on September 26, 2000. The Petition: Eduardo filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on January 16, 2001, by registered mail, which was the 60th day from receipt of the denial of his motion for reconsideration. However, he paid the docket and other lawful fees on January 17, 2001, one day after the reglementary period expired. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for late payment of docket fees. His motion for reconsideration was denied. He now seeks annulment of the Court of Appeals' resolutions via a special civil action for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition solely on procedural grounds, specifically regarding the propriety of the remedy and the late payment of docket fees. Whether the Regional Trial Court, Branch 140, Makati City committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the petition for relief filed by the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The assailed Resolutions dated February 23, 2001 and July 31, 2001 of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and procedural defects, including late payment of docket fees: The Supreme Court held that petitioner adopted the wrong remedy by filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition for review is the proper remedy for a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals, as it is a continuation of the appellate process. A special civil action for certiorari is an independent action and cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of ordinary appeal, especially when such loss is due to the petitioner's own neglect or error in choosing the remedy. The Court emphasized that liberality in the construction of the Rules of Court should not be a panacea for procedural maladies and should not be used to justify wanton disregard of procedural rules. Even if the procedural defects were disregarded, the Court found that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for late payment of filing fees. The petitioner undeniably paid his docket fees beyond the reglementary period of 60 days for filing a petition for certiorari. It is a well-settled rule that a court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case unless the docket fees are paid. While payment of docket fees may be allowed within a reasonable time if not paid upon filing, it cannot be beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 46, Section 3 in relation to Rule 65, Section 6 (2) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the denial of the petition for relief: There is no ratio provided in the text regarding the denial of the petition for relief by the Regional Trial Court. Therefore, the Court cannot provide a ratio decidendi for this issue based on the provided text.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed beyond the reglementary period and with belated payment of docket fees, which are jurisdictional requirements, should be dismissed. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of ordinary appeal under Rule 45.