Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint for collection of a sum of money filed by Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) against private respondents, Traveller Kids Inc., Cely L. Gabaldon-Co, and Jeannie L. Lugmoc, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 56. The private respondents moved for dismissal, asserting full payment of their obligation and challenging the RTC's jurisdiction due to PBCOM's alleged failure to pay correct docket fees. 2. Procedural History: The RTC ordered PBCOM to pay additional docket fees, which PBCOM paid but only complied with the court's order later. Consequently, the RTC dismissed PBCOM's complaint for failure to comply with the order. PBCOM's motion for reconsideration was denied, with the RTC noting irregularities in the proof of payment and the late filing of compliance. PBCOM then filed a Notice of Appeal, which the RTC denied due course, deeming it an improper remedy. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, PBCOM filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed this petition, affirming the RTC's order and citing PBCOM's use of a wrong mode of appeal and failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration. PBCOM's subsequent motion for reconsideration with the CA was denied as filed out of time. 3. The Petition: PBCOM filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision and resolution. PBCOM argues that the CA erred in dismissing its petition, contending that certiorari and mandamus were the proper remedies to question the RTC's order denying its notice of appeal, and that a motion for reconsideration was not necessary as the RTC order was a patent nullity. PBCOM also argues that the CA erred in denying its motion for reconsideration on the ground of being filed one day late. The core of PBCOM's argument is that the RTC acted without jurisdiction in denying the notice of appeal on the ground that it was an improper remedy, a power vested in the Court of Appeals, not the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing PBCOM's Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus on the ground that it was the wrong mode of appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing PBCOM's Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus on the ground that a prior motion for reconsideration was not filed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC Order and the CA Decision and Resolution. The RTC was directed to give due course to PBCOM's Notice of Appeal and elevate the case records to the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail an RTC order disallowing a notice of appeal. Such an order is not a final judgment or order from which an appeal may be taken, but rather an interlocutory order that prevents the appeal from being given due course. The RTC's denial of the notice of appeal on the ground that it was not the proper remedy was an act without or in excess of its jurisdiction, making the order a patent nullity. Therefore, certiorari was the appropriate recourse, contrary to the CA's finding. On the requirement of a prior motion for reconsideration: While generally a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for a petition for certiorari, the Court reiterated the established exceptions. One such exception is when the order assailed is a patent nullity, having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the RTC's denial of the notice of appeal on a ground not provided for by law (i.e., that appeal is not the proper remedy) rendered the order void. Thus, a motion for reconsideration was not necessary before filing the petition for certiorari, as it would have been a useless formality to ask the RTC to reconsider an order it had no authority to issue in the first place.
Main Doctrine
A Regional Trial Court (RTC) order denying due course to a notice of appeal on the ground that it is not the proper remedy is a patent nullity, as the RTC acts without or in excess of jurisdiction. The proper remedy to assail such an order is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, and a prior motion for reconsideration is not required if the order is a patent nullity.