Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. F. Franco Transport, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: F. Franco Transport, Inc. (Franco) obtained loans from Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) totaling P32,157,500.00, secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon Franco's default, RCBC foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the property at auction. Franco failed to redeem the property. RCBC then filed a petition for a writ of possession, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Franco's subsequent motions to quash the writ, for reconsideration, and for consolidation of cases were denied by the RTC. The RTC also denied Franco's motion to recall an alias writ of possession and to hold its implementation in abeyance. 2. Procedural History: The RTC, through its orders dated January 8, 2008, and April 4, 2008, denied Franco's notice of appeal, ruling that the orders were not appealable as they were merely incidental to the execution of a final order. Franco elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying due course to its notice of appeal. The CA granted the petition, annulling the RTC's orders and directing the RTC to give due course to Franco's notice of appeal. RCBC then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: RCBC seeks review of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in ordering the RTC to give due course to Franco's notice of appeal. RCBC contends that the orders sought to be appealed were not appealable as they were either interlocutory or orders of execution, which are explicitly excluded from the modes of appeal under the Rules of Court. RCBC further argues that the propriety of the writ of possession had already been affirmed by this Court in a prior resolution, making further appeals redundant and counterproductive to the swift administration of justice, given the prolonged pendency of the case since May 2001.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the Regional Trial Court to give due course to the respondent's notice of appeal. Whether the order denying the motion to recall and hold in abeyance the alias writ of possession was an appealable order.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, dismissed the appeal of F. Franco Transport, Inc., and directed the Regional Trial Court to proceed with the implementation of the alias writ of possession issued in favor of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the Regional Trial Court to give due course to the respondent's notice of appeal: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the RTC committed a jurisdictional error in denying due course to the notice of appeal. Appeal is a statutory right, and compliance with legal requirements is mandatory. Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court empowers the RTC to dismiss appeals only on two grounds: (a) the appeal is taken out of time, or (b) non-payment of docket and other fees within the reglementary period. The RTC has no power to disallow an appeal on any other ground. The determination of whether a case is appealable or whether an order is appealable pertains to the appellate court. Allowing the trial court to disallow appeals on grounds other than those specified would enable it to forestall the review of its own judgments or orders, no matter how erroneous. The CA correctly pointed out that the determination of whether an appeal was proper or not was outside the province of the RTC and pertained to the appellate court. On the issue of whether the order denying the motion to recall and hold in abeyance the alias writ of possession was an appealable order: The Court found that the order of February 26, 2007, denying the motion to recall and hold in abeyance the alias writ of possession, was not appealable. An appeal may only be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case. Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution or an interlocutory order. The writ of possession is a variant of the writ of execution, and an alias writ is a second writ issued when the first failed to accomplish its purpose. The order under challenge merely affirmed the order of execution. Furthermore, the propriety of the issuance of the writ of possession had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court in a prior resolution, making any further review redundant and contrary to the policy against multiplicity of suits. The pendency of a separate annulment case and the willingness to compromise did not serve as legal grounds to refuse or defer the issuance of the writ of possession, as the purchaser was entitled to possession regardless of the outcome of the annulment case, and compromise cannot be compelled.
Main Doctrine
The trial court may dismiss an appeal only on the grounds that it was taken out of time or that the required fees were not paid. For any other ground, the dismissal of an appeal pertains to the appellate court. An order of execution, including an alias writ of possession, is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; the remedy for any perceived error is a special civil action for certiorari.