Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) initiated three separate civil actions against the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas - BSP) and its officials. The first action, filed in August 1984, sought to annul Resolution No. 955, which placed Banco Filipino under conservatorship. The second, filed in February 1985, aimed to nullify Resolution No. 75, ordering the closure of Banco Filipino. The third, filed in June 1985, challenged the validity of a March 1985 resolution ordering the liquidation of Banco Filipino. Procedural History: These three civil cases were consolidated before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Banco Filipino later filed amended and supplemental complaints, increasing its claim for damages and impleading the Central Bank-Board of Liquidators (CB-BOL) and subsequently the BSP-MB as defendants. The BSP-MB filed a motion to dismiss, arguing prescription, waiver, and lack of jurisdiction. The RTC initially dismissed Banco Filipino's Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint with prejudice as to BSP-MB. Banco Filipino's subsequent Notice of Appeal was disapproved by the RTC, which was then affirmed by the RTC upon reconsideration. Banco Filipino then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's disapproval of its appeal. The Petition: The Court of Appeals, in its November 25, 2010 Decision and April 1, 2011 Resolution, reversed and set aside the RTC's Orders, ruling that the dismissal order was a final order subject to appeal and that the RTC gravely abused its discretion. The BSP-MB, as petitioners, filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, asserting that a notice of appeal was an improper remedy and that a record on appeal should have been filed. They also contended that the CA erred in applying the doctrine of non-interference and in not dismissing Banco Filipino's petition outright due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Notice of Appeal filed by respondent Banco Filipino. Whether the filing of a Notice of Appeal by respondent Banco Filipino was the proper mode of appeal under the Rules of Court. Whether a record on appeal was required for the appeal from the dismissal of the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in applying the doctrine of non-interference in the instant case. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not dismissing outright respondent's petition due to lack of legal capacity to file the same.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the Notice of Appeal, as it was an improper remedy. The Court further held that a record on appeal was not required in this case. The Court also found that the CA erred in applying the doctrine of non-interference and that the petition should have been dismissed outright due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Notice of Appeal: The Court held that the filing of a Notice of Appeal was an improper remedy to question the dismissal of an action against one of the parties while the main case is still pending. Citing Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the Court explained that while the RTC Order dismissing the case against BSP-MB was a final order, it fell within the exceptions provided in subparagraph (g), which pertains to a judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties while the main case is pending. In such instances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court reiterated its ruling in Jan-Dec Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the dismissal of an action against one of the parties while the main case is still pending. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Banco Filipino's Notice of Appeal for being a wrong remedy. On the propriety of the Notice of Appeal: The Court held that the filing of a Notice of Appeal was an improper remedy to question the dismissal of an action against one of the parties while the main case is still pending. Citing Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the Court explained that while the RTC Order dismissing the case against BSP-MB was a final order, it fell within the exceptions provided in subparagraph (g), which pertains to a judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties while the main case is pending. In such instances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court reiterated its ruling in Jan-Dec Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the dismissal of an action against one of the parties while the main case is still pending. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Banco Filipino's Notice of Appeal for being a wrong remedy. On the requirement of a Record on Appeal: The Court disagreed with BSP-MB's contention that a record on appeal was necessary. Under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, no record on appeal is required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or the Rules so require. The Court found that the consolidated cases were ordinary civil cases and did not fall under the classification of "other cases of multiple or separate appeals" requiring a record on appeal. The Court noted that the consolidated cases involved different and separate causes of action against the various defendants, and the trial court need not retain the records concerning BSP-MB's case if Banco Filipino decided to appeal. On the application of the doctrine of non-interference: The Court found the CA's application of the doctrine of non-interference to be mistaken. The Court clarified that the CA's decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 86697 affirmed the RTC's order admitting the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint, while the RTC's subsequent orders dismissed the complaint on the merits. The Court reasoned that the admission of a complaint must precede its dismissal on the merits. The Court stated that a ruling sustaining the RTC's order dismissing Banco Filipino's Notice of Appeal could not affect, disturb, or contradict the CA's admission of the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint. Therefore, the CA mistakenly relied on the doctrine of non-interference in reversing the RTC Orders. On the defective verification and certification against forum shopping: The Court found merit in BSP-MB's contention that the CA should have dismissed Banco Filipino's petition outright due to a flawed verification and certification against forum shopping. While acknowledging that verification is a formal requisite and not jurisdictional, the Court noted that the authority granted to the individuals who signed the verification and certification was confined to a specific case (Civil Case No. 04-823, a Petition for Revival of Judgment) and did not extend to representing Banco Filipino before the CA in the present petition. Since there was no substantial compliance with the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping, the petition should have been dismissed outright by the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
A notice of appeal is an improper remedy to question the dismissal of an action against one of several parties while the main case is still pending; a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is the appropriate remedy. Furthermore, a record on appeal is not required for appeals in ordinary civil cases unless specifically provided by law or rules for multiple or separate appeals.