Crisologo v. Globe Telecom
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Jenette Marie B. Crisologo, a former employee of Globe Telecom Inc., was provided with a 1997 Toyota Camry as part of her executive benefits. Following her separation from the company in April 2002, a dispute arose concerning the possession of this vehicle. Procedural History: Crisologo initially filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which was dismissed. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the NLRC's decision. While this petition was pending, Globe Telecom filed a separate action for recovery of possession of the vehicle with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Crisologo's motion to dismiss the RTC case on grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping was denied, leading her to file another petition for certiorari with the CA. The RTC subsequently declared Crisologo in default in the replevin case and rendered a default judgment ordering her to pay substantial damages and attorney's fees. Crisologo then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Crisologo filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to assail the default judgment rendered by the RTC. She contended that her appeal should have been entertained, citing a previous Supreme Court case and arguing that the issues involved questions of law. However, the Supreme Court noted that her chosen remedy was incorrect under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and that the issues, particularly regarding damages, involved questions of fact that should have been addressed by the Court of Appeals. Despite the procedural misstep, the Court, exercising its discretion, granted the motion for reconsideration and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court is the proper remedy to assail a default judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court. Whether the Supreme Court may refer a case involving questions of fact, erroneously appealed via certiorari, to the Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The petition is reinstated and the case is REFERRED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court reiterated that a defendant declared in default has several remedies: (a) a motion to set aside the order of default before judgment; (b) a motion for new trial if judgment has been rendered but has not yet become final; (c) a petition for relief if the default judgment has become final and executory; and (d) an ordinary appeal from the judgment as contrary to the evidence or law, even without a prior motion to set aside the default. A petition for certiorari is also available if the trial court improperly declared a party in default or if grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration. In this case, the petitioner admitted she was properly declared in default, thus foreclosing the remedy of certiorari based on an improper declaration. Her recourse should have been an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or a motion for new trial. The petition for review on certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court was, therefore, the wrong remedy. The Court clarified that the Matute case, relied upon by the petitioner, pertained to the old Rules of Court and that under the 1997 Rules, an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals is the prescribed mode for assailing a default judgment when no grave abuse of discretion is alleged. On referral to the Court of Appeals: The Court acknowledged that while the petition was filed via the wrong mode of appeal, it may, in its discretion, refer the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 6, paragraph 2 of Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This provision allows the Supreme Court to refer an appeal by certiorari that submits issues of fact to the Court of Appeals. The Court found that the issues raised by the petitioner, particularly concerning the monetary awards for damages, involved a re-evaluation of evidence, which are questions of fact. Given that substantial ends of justice would be served, the Court opted to exercise its discretion to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, rather than dismiss the appeal outright due to the error in the mode of appeal.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail a default judgment rendered by a Regional Trial Court; the proper remedies are a motion for new trial, a petition for relief, or an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals, unless grave abuse of discretion attended the declaration of default, in which case a petition for certiorari may be availed of. The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, refer a case involving questions of fact erroneously appealed via certiorari to the Court of Appeals.