Lee vs. Court of Appeals

The nature of a petition is determined by its allegations, not by its caption or the designation assigned by the party, but dismissal is nonetheless proper where the petitioner fails to comply with the formal and documentary requirements of the applicable rule, specifically Section 2(d), Rule 42, which requires certified copies of the lower courts' judgments and the attachment of pleadings and material portions of the record.

Petitioner Quintin Lee, Jr. was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property under Article 365 in relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, of Dagupan City, stemming from a vehicular accident on March 11, 1994 in which the owner-type jeep he was driving bumped Amado Villafania, causing the latter's death, and thereafter swerved and damaged a Nissan Bluebird car. The case progressed through the MTCC and the Regional Trial Court, and the dispute before the Supreme Court centered entirely on the procedural propriety of the mode of appeal pursued before the Court of Appeals.

On March 11, 1994, along Caranglaan Road in Dagupan City, an owner-type jeep bearing Plate No. ACW-293, driven by Quintin Lee, Jr., bumped Amado Villafania, causing his death shortly thereafter due to "Cardio respiratory arrest, Massive intracranial hemorrhage, Traumatic, Vehicular accident," as confirmed by an autopsy report issued by Dr. Tomas G. Cornel, Assistant City Health Officer. As a consequence of the same negligence, the jeep swerved to the left and bumped a stationary Nissan Bluebird car bearing Plate No. CVJ-162 driven by Meneleo Bañez, causing damages estimated at ₱200,792.50.

Petitioner was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property under Article 365 in relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code before the MTCC, Branch 2, of Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. 22289. The Information, dated June 24, 1994, alleged that petitioner drove the jeep at a fast clip and in a negligent, careless, and imprudent manner, without due regard to traffic laws and the condition of the road, weather, and atmosphere, and without taking reasonable precaution to prevent accident.

After trial, the MTCC rendered judgment convicting petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of four months and one day to two years, seven months, and ten days of imprisonment, and ordering him to pay ₱50,000.00 as death indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, plus costs. On appeal, the RTC, Branch 40, of Dagupan City affirmed the MTCC decision, and the motion for reconsideration was denied by the succeeding Presiding Judge, Crispin C. Laron.

Petitioner then sought review before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court initially dismissed the petition on January 30, 2003 for violation of Section 2(d), Rule 42, noting that petitioner failed to furnish the OSG with requisite copies, submitted only plain machine copies instead of certified photocopies of the assailed decisions, and failed to attach the pleadings and material portions of the record. On motion for reconsideration, the CA reinstated the petition, stating that justice would be best served by resolving the case on the merits. However, on September 18, 2003, the CA again dismissed the petition, this time on the ground that petitioner pursued the wrong mode of appeal — certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 42 — since the RTC decision was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The motion for reconsideration was denied on October 7, 2004, prompting the present petition.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner claimed that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal, arguing that the CA had already recognized and declared that the petition was filed under Rule 42 when it quoted that Rule in its January 30, 2003 Resolution.
• Estoppel: Petitioner maintained that the appellate court was estopped from declaring otherwise, since it also recognized the appeal as being under Rule 42 in resolving the motion for reconsideration.
• Substantial Compliance: Petitioner contended that he had complied with the requirements as to form and content of a petition for review, and that the petition sought to set aside the RTC decision on the ground that the RTC committed reversible errors in affirming the MTCC.

• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: The OSG countered that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court, as the provisions of Rule 42 are unambiguous and leave no room for contrary interpretation.
• Nature of the Petition: The OSG pointed out that the allegations of grave abuse of discretion under the heading "Nature of the Petition" indicated that the petition was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the sole office of which is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, and thus the petition was dismissible because it should have been a petition for review under Rule 42.

• Nature of the Petition Before the Court of Appeals: Whether the petition filed before the Court of Appeals was a petition for review under Rule 42 or a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 74958.

• Nature of the Petition Before the Court of Appeals: The petition was a petition for review under Rule 42, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The allegations and grounds cited therein addressed factual findings and appreciation of evidence, not questions of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No grave abuse of discretion was committed. While the CA erred in characterizing the petition as a Rule 65 action, the dismissal was nonetheless proper because petitioner failed to comply with the documentary requirements of Section 2(d), Rule 42.

• Nature of the Petition Before the Court of Appeals: It is hornbook doctrine that the nature of an action is determined not by the caption of the pleading but by the allegations therein. Although petitioner stated under the heading "Nature of the Petition" that it was a "petition for review on certiorari" and alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and even impleaded the lower courts, these designations did not automatically bring the petition within the coverage of Rule 65. The grounds cited by petitioner — that the lower courts committed gross error in holding that the accused was the driver who hit the deceased, and that the lower courts committed gross error in convicting the accused despite overwhelming exculpatory evidence — were issues on factual findings and appreciation of facts, not questions of jurisdiction. These were pleas for judicial reevaluation of the evidence, which are properly the subject of a petition for review under Rule 42, not certiorari under Rule 65. A petition for review under Rule 42 seeks review of a judgment rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction on questions of law or fact or both, whereas certiorari under Rule 65 is a limited remedy of last resort that issues only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in findings or conclusions.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Although the CA's characterization of the petition as a Rule 65 action was incorrect, the dismissal was sustainable on an independent ground. The CA likewise found that petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Section 2(d), Rule 42, in that he attached only plain machine copies of the certified photocopies of the assailed decisions and failed to submit the pleadings and other material portions of the record to support his allegations. The CA therefore properly exercised its jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal on this basis. Additionally, the Court noted that petitioner erred in invoking the wrong remedy before the Supreme Court itself, having filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Nature of Action Determined by Allegations, Not Caption — It is hornbook doctrine that it is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action. In this case, although the petitioner labeled his petition as one for certiorari and alleged grave abuse of discretion, the grounds he actually raised pertained to factual findings and appreciation of evidence, which properly fall under a petition for review under Rule 42 rather than a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

• Distinction Between Rule 42 and Rule 65 — A petition for review under Rule 42 seeks to review a judgment rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction on questions of law or of fact or both. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is a limited form of review and a remedy of last resort, issuing only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. The Court applied this distinction to determine that the petitioner's filing was properly a Rule 42 petition, despite its caption and designation.

• "It is hornbook doctrine that it is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action." — This passage articulates the controlling principle for determining the nature of a petition, overriding formal designations and captions, and is the ratio decidendi for the Court's conclusion that the petition before the CA was a Rule 42 petition for review.

• "A petition for review under Rule 42 and a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 are distinct remedies. A petition for review under Rule 42 seeks to review a judgment rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction on questions of law or of fact or both. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, on the other hand, is a limited form of review and a remedy of last resort. It will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court." — This passage defines the distinction between the two remedies and explains why the petitioner's grounds, which raised factual and evidentiary issues, fell under Rule 42 rather than Rule 65.

• Zafra vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139013, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 200 — Cited as controlling authority for the doctrine that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the pleading, not by its caption. The Court relied on this principle to conclude that the petition before the CA was a Rule 42 petition for review despite its designation as a certiorari petition.

• Empire Insurance Company vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121879, August 14, 1998, 294 SCRA 263 — Cited for the proposition that certiorari under Rule 65 is a limited form of review and a remedy of last resort, issuing only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. The Court used this distinction to differentiate Rule 42 from Rule 65.

• Rule 42, Section 2(d), Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for review be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the RTC, and the requisite number of plain copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record. The Court found that petitioner failed to comply with this requirement, having submitted only plain machine copies instead of certified copies, which independently justified the dismissal.

• Rule 42, Section 1, Rules of Court — Provides that a party desiring to appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The Court cited this provision to establish the proper mode of appeal from an RTC appellate decision.

• Rule 65, Section 1, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari, available when a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court distinguished this remedy from a Rule 42 petition for review.

• Article 365 in relation to Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, for which petitioner was charged and convicted by the MTCC.

Associate Justices Dante O. Tinga, Ruben T. Reyes, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Arturo D. Brion concurred. No separate concurring opinions were written.