Ong v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jerry Ong made money market placements with Omnibus Finance Inc. (OFI) in 1982 and 1983. OFI subsequently experienced financial difficulties, and its checks issued to Ong were dishonored upon maturity. To secure the payment of OFI's obligations amounting to P863,517.02, a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was executed in favor of Ong on December 29, 1983, by Cynthia Gonzales, Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Rural Bank of Olongapo (RBO), a sister company of OFI. The mortgage covered two parcels of land in Tagaytay City registered in RBO's name, with the mortgage being annotated on the titles on January 13, 1984. When OFI failed to pay, Ong foreclosed the mortgage on March 18, 1984, and a Certificate of Sale was issued and registered on July 16, 1985. Procedural History: Following the foreclosure, RBO's Corporate Secretary filed a case for annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure proceedings. Separately, the Central Bank, later substituted by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), filed a petition for assistance in the liquidation of RBO. The annulment case was consolidated with the liquidation proceedings. Ong later filed a petition for the surrender of the titles, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) for lack of jurisdiction, but without prejudice to his claim in the liquidation proceedings. Ong then filed a motion to admit his claim as a secured creditor in the liquidation proceedings. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted Ong's claim, awarding him the properties. However, upon reconsideration, the RTC reversed its decision, declared the mortgage and foreclosure null and void, and denied Ong's claim. Ong appealed this decision, but the RTC later dismissed the appeal for failure to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period. The CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal, holding that liquidation proceedings are special proceedings requiring a record on appeal, and Ong's failure to file it was not an excusable neglect. The CA also ruled that it could not review the admissibility of evidence in a petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner Jerry Ong filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the CA's decision and resolution. He argues that the CA gravely erred and abused its discretion by dismissing his petition for certiorari based solely on technical rules of procedure and without passing upon the merits of his appeal. Ong contends that his counsel's failure to file a record on appeal was due to excusable neglect stemming from the complex nature of the case and an honest belief that the proceedings were ordinary civil actions, not special proceedings. He cites cases where procedural rules were relaxed in the interest of substantial justice. Furthermore, he argues that the issue of the admissibility of respondent's witnesses' testimonies is a question of law, not fact, and thus within the scope of certiorari. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision. The Court held that appeals in special proceedings, such as liquidation proceedings, require both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal, and failure to comply is a jurisdictional defect. The Court found Ong's explanation for the delay insufficient to warrant relaxation of the rules and reiterated that certiorari under Rule 65 is not a remedy for the correction of errors of fact or evaluation of evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition for certiorari based solely on technical rules of procedure. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition for certiorari without passing upon the merit of petitioner's appeal. Whether the issue on the admissibility of the testimonies of respondent's witnesses is a question of law that can be raised in a petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 31, 2006 and the Resolution dated October 5, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 93441 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari based on technical rules of procedure: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling. The RTC decision sought to be appealed was rendered in a special proceeding (liquidation of RBO). Under Section 2(a) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal in special proceedings requires the filing of both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal. Section 3 of Rule 41 mandates that the record on appeal be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order. Petitioner filed only a notice of appeal and failed to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period. The RTC correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it, and the CA did not err in sustaining this dismissal. The RTC's dismissal was expressly allowed under Section 13 of Rule 41. The perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is not merely a technicality but a jurisdictional requirement. On the issue of whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari without passing upon the merit of petitioner's appeal: The Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari. Since the appeal was not perfected due to the failure to file the record on appeal, the RTC decision became final and executory. The appellate court, including the CA, is deprived of jurisdiction to alter a final judgment. Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy for errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. Petitioner's argument that his counsel's honest belief that the case was an ordinary civil action did not constitute excusable neglect, as the nature of liquidation proceedings as special proceedings was already settled jurisprudence. The Court reiterated that an erroneous application of law or rules is not an excusable error, and petitioner is bound by the mistake of his counsel. On the issue of whether the admissibility of testimonies is a question of law cognizable by certiorari: The Court found this claim unmeritorious. The CA correctly held that the issue of admissibility of testimonies involves questions of fact and evaluation of evidence, which are beyond the scope of a special civil action for certiorari. The sole office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not the review of the public respondent's evaluation of evidence or factual findings. Therefore, the CA did not err in refusing to pass upon this issue within the parameters of a certiorari petition.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to file a record on appeal in special proceedings, such as liquidation proceedings, results in the loss of the right to appeal and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.