Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Court of Appeals

A trial court's order disallowing a notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken; the suitable remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Moreover, the RTC has no jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on a ground other than those specified in Rule 41, Section 13, and such an order is a patent nullity, excusing the failure to file a motion for reconsideration.

PBCOM filed a collection suit against private respondents before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 56, docketed as Civil Case No. 10-185. Private respondents moved to dismiss, alleging that their obligation had been paid in full and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because PBCOM failed to pay the correct docket fees. The RTC ordered PBCOM to pay additional docket fees of ₱24,765.70 within fifteen days.

PBCOM filed a Complaint for collection of a sum of money in the amount of ₱8,971,118.06 against private respondents before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 56, docketed as Civil Case No. 10-185. Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the Complaint, alleging that their obligation had already been paid in full and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because PBCOM failed to pay the correct docket fees.

On September 29, 2010, the RTC issued an Order directing PBCOM to pay additional docket fees in the amount of ₱24,765.70 within fifteen days from receipt thereof. On October 21, 2010, PBCOM paid the additional docket fees but filed its Compliance with the RTC only on November 11, 2010. In the interim, however, the RTC issued an Order dated November 4, 2010, dismissing PBCOM's Complaint for failure to comply with the September 29, 2010 order.

PBCOM filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated November 22, 2010, stating that it had paid the additional docket fees within the period prescribed by the court, as evidenced by the Official Receipt attached thereto. In an Order dated May 3, 2011, the RTC denied the motion, noting that PBCOM received the September 29, 2010 order on October 7, 2010, and thus had until October 22, 2010 to pay. The RTC further noted the defendants' observation that the Compliance dated November 11, 2010 was "suspicious" because it was filed several weeks after the alleged payment, and that the subject Official Receipt was "highly irregular" — signed only by a certain Liza Maia Esteves Sirios, with no signature above the name of Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr., Clerk of Court VII, who was supposed to receive the payment.

Undaunted, PBCOM timely filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 26, 2011. On June 2, 2011, the RTC issued an Order denying due course to PBCOM's Notice of Appeal on the ground that said appeal is not the proper remedy. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, PBCOM filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA.

On July 31, 2014, the CA issued the assailed Decision denying PBCOM's Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and affirming the order of the RTC. The CA reasoned that, apart from availing itself of a wrong mode of appeal, PBCOM failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of a motion for reconsideration, which the CA emphasized is a condition sine qua non for a petition for certiorari to prosper. The CA's denial of PBCOM's motion for reconsideration was affirmed in a Resolution dated May 5, 2015.

• Proper Remedy: PBCOM argued that the petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA was the proper remedy to question the Order dated June 2, 2011 of the RTC denying its notice of appeal.
• Motion for Reconsideration: PBCOM argued that a motion for reconsideration is not required when the order assailed is a patent nullity for having been issued without jurisdiction.
• Mandamus: PBCOM argued that the respondent judge should be compelled by mandamus to approve its notice of appeal and to transmit the case records to the Court of Appeals.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: PBCOM argued that the CA gravely abused its discretion when it ruled that the petition for certiorari and mandamus is a wrong mode of appeal.

• Payment and Jurisdiction: Private respondents moved for dismissal of the Complaint, alleging that their obligation had already been paid in full and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because PBCOM failed to pay the correct docket fees.
• Irregularity of the Official Receipt: In their comment/opposition to PBCOM's motion for reconsideration, private respondents observed that the Compliance dated November 11, 2010 was suspicious because it was filed several weeks after the alleged payment, and that the subject Official Receipt was highly irregular — signed only by a certain Liza Maia Esteves Sirios, with no signature above the name of Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr., Clerk of Court VII, who was supposed to receive the payment.

• Proper Remedy: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail an RTC order denying due course to a notice of appeal.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the failure to file a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari is excused when the assailed order is a patent nullity.
• Jurisdiction of the RTC: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on the ground that appeal is not the proper remedy.

• Proper Remedy: Yes. Under Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso, a trial court's order disallowing a notice of appeal, which is tantamount to a disallowance or dismissal of the appeal itself, is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken; the suitable remedy for the aggrieved party is to elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Yes, excused. The first exception to the motion for reconsideration requirement applies — where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction. The RTC's order denying due course to the notice of appeal on the ground that appeal was not the proper remedy was a patent nullity.
• Jurisdiction of the RTC: No. The RTC has no jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on a ground other than those specified in Rule 41, Section 13. The authority to dismiss an appeal for being an improper remedy is specifically vested upon the CA, not the RTC, under Rule 50, Section 1.

• Proper Remedy: The CA confused the RTC Order dismissing PBCOM's complaint with the RTC Order denying PBCOM's notice of appeal. In its petition before the CA, PBCOM assailed the RTC Order denying due course to its notice of appeal. Under Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso, a trial court's order disallowing a notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken; the suitable remedy is a special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, contrary to the CA's finding, PBCOM availed itself of the correct remedy in questioning the disallowance of its notice of appeal.

• Motion for Reconsideration: While it is a settled rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent court, there are well-defined exceptions established by jurisprudence, including: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. The first exception applied in this case because the RTC's order denying due course to the notice of appeal was a patent nullity.

• Jurisdiction of the RTC: Under Rule 41, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may, motu proprio or on motion, dismiss the appeal only for having been taken out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. In Salvan vs. People, the power of the RTC to dismiss an appeal is limited to the instances specified in the afore-quoted provision; the RTC has no jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground, such as "that an appeal is not a proper remedy." The authority to dismiss an appeal for being an improper remedy is specifically vested upon the CA under Rule 50, Section 1, which provides that an appeal may be dismissed by the CA on the ground that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable. Citing Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco, the Court emphasized that dismissals of appeals from the judgment of an RTC by the latter are authorized only in the instances specifically set forth in Section 13, Rule 41, and that a trial court may not dismiss an appeal as frivolous or on the ground that the case has become moot and academic — such step devolving upon the appellate courts. Otherwise, the way would be opened for trial courts to forestall review or reversal of their decisions by higher courts, no matter how erroneous or improper such decisions should be. Accordingly, the assailed RTC Order denying due course to PBCOM's notice of appeal on the ground that it was a wrong remedy was a patent nullity, and the RTC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.

• Patent Nullity Exception to the Motion for Reconsideration Requirement — A motion for reconsideration is generally a condition sine qua non for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to prosper. However, an exception exists where the order assailed is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction. In this case, the RTC's order denying due course to PBCOM's notice of appeal on the ground that appeal was not the proper remedy was a patent nullity because the RTC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, thereby excusing PBCOM's failure to file a motion for reconsideration.

• Limited Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal by the Trial Court — Under Rule 41, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the RTC may dismiss an appeal only for having been taken out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. The RTC has no jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground, such as that an appeal is not a proper remedy. The authority to dismiss an appeal for being an improper remedy is specifically vested upon the CA under Rule 50, Section 1.

• Proper Remedy for Disallowance of Notice of Appeal — An order disallowing a notice of appeal, which is tantamount to a disallowance or dismissal of the appeal itself, is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken. The suitable remedy for the aggrieved party is to elevate the matter through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

• "a trial court's order disallowing a notice of appeal, which is tantamount to a disallowance or dismissal of the appeal itself, is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken. The suitable remedy for the aggrieved party is to elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65." — This passage from Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso states the controlling rule that the CA erred in finding that PBCOM availed of a wrong mode of appeal; it defines the proper remedy for assailing an order disallowing a notice of appeal.

• "the power of the RTC to dismiss an appeal is limited to the instances specified in the afore-quoted provision. In other words, the RTC has no jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground - such as 'that an appeal is not a proper remedy.'" — This passage from Salvan vs. People establishes the limited scope of the RTC's power to dismiss appeals, which is the basis for holding that the RTC's order was a patent nullity.

• "Dismissals of appeals from the judgment of a Regional Trial Court by the latter are authorized only in the instances specifically set forth x x x in Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court." — This passage from Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco reinforces the principle that the trial court's authority to dismiss appeals is strictly limited, and that dismissing an appeal on other grounds would open the way for trial courts to forestall review of their decisions by higher courts.

• Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844 (2002) — Controlling precedent for the rule that an order disallowing a notice of appeal is not a final order from which an appeal may be taken, and that the suitable remedy is a special civil action under Rule 65.
• Salvan vs. People, 457 Phil. 785 (2003) — Followed for the rule that the RTC's power to dismiss an appeal is limited to the instances specified in Rule 41, Section 13, and that the RTC has no jurisdiction to deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground.
• Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco, 304 Phil. 620 (1994) — Followed for the principle that dismissals of appeals by the RTC are authorized only in the instances set forth in Section 13, Rule 41, and that the authority to dismiss an appeal on other grounds, such as frivolity or mootness, belongs to the appellate court.
• Mercado vs. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc., 677 Phil. 13 (2011) — Cited for the rule that the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Tanenglian vs. Lorenzo, 573 Phil. 472 (2008) — Cited for the principle that rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.

• Rule 41, Section 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Limits the RTC's power to dismiss an appeal to instances where the appeal was taken out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. Applied to hold that the RTC had no jurisdiction to deny PBCOM's notice of appeal on the ground that appeal was not the proper remedy.
• Rule 50, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Vests the CA with authority to dismiss an appeal on grounds including that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable. Applied to show that the authority to dismiss an appeal for being an improper remedy belongs to the CA, not the RTC.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The proper remedy against decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the CA. Applied to note that PBCOM availed of the wrong mode of appeal in bringing the case before the Supreme Court, although the Court relaxed the rules under exceptional circumstances.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The special civil action for certiorari, the proper remedy to assail an RTC order denying due course to a notice of appeal. Applied to hold that PBCOM correctly availed of this remedy before the CA.
• Section 3, Rule 17, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — The provision under which the RTC dismissed PBCOM's complaint for failure to comply with the order to pay additional docket fees. Applied to show the basis of the original dismissal, which the CA confused with the subsequent denial of the notice of appeal.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.