First Corporation v. Sacris
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Eduardo M. Sacris (Sacris) extended loans totaling P2.2 million to petitioner First Corporation (First Corp.) from 1991 to 1997, with an initial agreement for conversion to shareholding and later a 1% monthly interest, which was subsequently increased to 2.5% per month. These loans were coursed through Cesar A. Abillar (Abillar), then President and Chairman of First Corp. First Corp. made partial payments, leaving an outstanding balance of P1.8 million. Abillar was later ousted as an officer due to alleged anomalies. Procedural History: Sacris assigned his P1.8 million collectible to Abillar. Abillar filed a collection case against First Corp. Subsequently, Sacris and Abillar rescinded the assignment due to Abillar's failure to pay Sacris. Sacris then intervened in Abillar's case, and his intervention was admitted, while Abillar's complaint was dismissed. First Corp. filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which set aside the RTC orders, directing the dismissal of Abillar's complaint with prejudice and denial of Sacris's intervention without prejudice. Following this CA decision, Sacris filed a new collection case against First Corp. in the RTC of Quezon City. First Corp. filed a third-party complaint against Abillar. The RTC ruled in favor of Sacris and Abillar, ordering First Corp. to pay P1.8 million plus interest and attorney's fees. First Corp. appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC decision. First Corp. then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: First Corp. filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to annul the RTC and CA decisions on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, alleging that the lower courts erred in holding that Sacris's claims were supported by preponderance of evidence, that First Corp. benefited from the loans, that Abillar was authorized to borrow, and in not awarding damages to First Corp. and dismissing its third-party complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 when the issues raised primarily involve a review of factual findings and evidence. Whether the Petition for Certiorari was the proper remedy, considering that an appeal under Rule 45 was available and the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. The Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner involved a review of factual findings and evidence, which is not the proper office of a writ of certiorari. Furthermore, the petitioner availed itself of the wrong mode of appeal, as it filed a petition for certiorari beyond the reglementary period for an appeal under Rule 45, making it an impermissible substitute for a lost remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of Certiorari and the review of factual findings: The Court reiterated the well-entrenched rule that it is not a trier of facts and will not pass upon the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, unless exceptional circumstances exist. The issues raised by petitioner, such as the sufficiency of evidence, the benefit derived from the loans, and the authority of Abillar, all necessitate an examination and re-evaluation of evidence. Such review is beyond the scope of certiorari, which is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment or errors in the appreciation of evidence. An error in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment, which cannot be remedied by certiorari. On the proper mode of appeal: The Court emphasized that the proper remedy from an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals is an appeal under Rule 45, not a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The petitioner received the CA Resolution denying its motion for reconsideration on February 23, 2006, giving it 15 days, or until March 10, 2006, to file a Petition for Review under Rule 45. Instead, the petitioner filed the Petition for Certiorari on April 6, 2006, 42 days after receipt, clearly beyond the reglementary period for appeal. The Court held that it would not treat the certiorari petition as a Rule 45 appeal because it was filed beyond the prescribed period, and the petitioner would not be allowed to use certiorari as a substitute for a lapsed or lost remedy of appeal. The Court also noted that even if treated as a Rule 45 appeal, it would be dismissed for lack of merit as no recognized exceptions for resolving factual issues were present.
Main Doctrine
A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal under Rule 45, especially when filed beyond the reglementary period for appeal, and cannot be used to review factual findings or re-evaluate evidence, as such actions constitute errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction.