University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the liquidation of the Mindanao Savings and Loan Association (MSLA). The Monetary Board ordered the closure of MSLA on August 31, 1990, and subsequently ordered its liquidation on May 24, 1991, appointing the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) as liquidator. The PDIC then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 12, seeking assistance in the liquidation process. The RTC granted the petition and issued various orders directing the PDIC to submit liquidation plans, hasten the liquidation, and conduct an inventory of MSLA's assets, books, and properties, including publishing a notice for claimants and creditors to file their claims. Procedural History: Following the PDIC's petition for liquidation assistance, the RTC issued several orders to facilitate the process. A motion to dismiss was filed by a claimant, Atty. Reymundo Villarica, citing PDIC's failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The RTC directed PDIC to submit a liquidation plan and show compliance. PDIC later filed a Motion for Approval of Partial Project of Distribution, classifying certain claims as trust funds. Petitioners, as stockholders and claimants, opposed this motion, arguing for a proper project of distribution. The RTC issued an order on April 20, 2005, terminating the liquidation proceedings and dismissing the case due to PDIC's alleged failure to comply with jurisdictional requirements, ordering PDIC to pay approved claims and trust funds, and to turn over remaining assets. Both PDIC and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) appealed this resolution. The Petition: The PDIC's appeal was approved by the RTC, while the BSP's appeal was denied. The case proceeded to the Court of Appeals (CA). The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the PDIC's appeal, alleging non-compliance with rules regarding the filing of copies of the record on appeal and defects in the notice of appeal. The CA denied the motion to dismiss in a Resolution dated July 6, 2007, and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration on October 24, 2007. The petitioners are now before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the CA's resolutions. They argue that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding their motion to dismiss, citing PDIC's alleged deliberate refusal to comply with mandatory rules and the patent defects in the notice and record of appeal, which they contend divested the CA of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disregarding petitioners' motion to dismiss appeal based on respondent PDIC's alleged deliberate refusal to comply with Section 4, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether the Court of Appeals acted with gross abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the appeal when respondent PDIC's notice of appeal is allegedly defective for failure to comply with Section 5, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, violating Section 1(b), Rule 50 of the said Rules. Whether the Court of Appeals committed gross abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying dismissal of the appeal, finding respondent PDIC's record on appeal to have included data showing its timely perfection required under Section 6, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, when said record on appeal allegedly does not show on its face its timely perfection, warranting dismissal pursuant to Section 1(a), Rule 50 of the said 1997 Rules. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in applying the ruling in Prudential Bank v. Business Assistance Group, Inc., and should have dismissed the appeal by applying the jurisprudence in Lamzon v. National Labor Relations Commission, Antonio v. Commission on Elections, and Pet Plans, Inc. et al. v. Court of Appeals.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The July 6, 2007 Resolution and October 24, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 00824, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari for denial of a motion to dismiss: The Court reiterated that the denial of a motion to dismiss, being an interlocutory order, cannot generally be questioned by certiorari until a final judgment is rendered. Certiorari is only available when the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, amounting to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Tolerating such practice would delay justice and unduly burden the courts. The Court found that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, thus, certiorari was not the proper remedy. On the alleged failure to file seven copies of the record on appeal and the alleged defects in the notice of appeal: The Court clarified that Section 4, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court does not explicitly state that the non-submission of copies of the approved record on appeal is a ground for dismissal. It only provides for dismissal in case of "unauthorized alteration, omission or addition in the approved record of appeal." The Court emphasized that rules of procedure should be liberally construed to promote justice, not frustrate it. Since the rules did not mandate dismissal for this specific omission, and the CA did not find it fatal, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The CA could have simply asked PDIC to submit the required copies, and certiorari does not issue to correct mere errors of procedure. The Court upheld the CA's finding that PDIC had substantially complied with the requirements for the perfection of its appeal. While the notice of appeal might not have explicitly stated all the required details on its face, the CA found that the material dates were cited in the Record on Appeal, legal fees were paid, and the RTC had already affirmed the timely filing of both the notice and record on appeal. The Court considered these as substantial compliance, and any remaining defects were deemed formal errors that did not divest the CA of jurisdiction. The argument regarding the non-service of the notice of appeal to other entities was also dismissed as these entities were either not creditors of MSLA or their claims were already settled or held in trust. On the alleged defect in the record on appeal: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in not dismissing the appeal due to alleged defects in the record on appeal. The CA had found that the record on appeal contained the material dates and that the RTC had determined the timely perfection of the appeal. The Court reiterated that grounds for dismissal under Section 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court are generally discretionary, not mandatory, as indicated by the use of the word "may." Therefore, it was within the CA's discretion to accept the appeal, and its decision to do so did not constitute a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. On the applicability of cited jurisprudence: The Court distinguished the cases cited by the petitioners (Lamzon, Antonio, Pet Plans) from the present case. It noted that those cases involved appeals that were not perfected within the reglementary period, filed out of time, or failed to comply with specific rules like verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. In contrast, the present petition involved substantial compliance with the form and content of the notice and record on appeal. Therefore, the cited jurisprudence was deemed inapplicable.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not lie to question an interlocutory order, such as the denial of a motion to dismiss, unless it is shown that the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote justice, and dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is generally discouraged.