Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO, INC., DR.
GUILLERMO P. TORRES, JR., ATTY. VICTOR NICASIO P. TORRES, NANCY C. TE ENG FO,
FE AZUCENA MARCELINO, EVANGELINE F. MAGALLANES, CARMENCITA E. VIDAMO,
CARMICHAEL E. VIDAMO, ANTONIO M. PILPIL, SATURNINO PETALCORIN, REYNALDO M.
PETALCORIN, LILIAN M. PETALCORIN-CASTILLO, MARY ANN M. PETALCORIN-RAS,
VITALIANO MALAYO, JR., NERI FILIPINAS, NATIVIDAD MIRANDA, ANTONIO N. FERRER,
JR., Petitioners, - versus - PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 181201 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February
21, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari,[1] under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the July 6, 2007 Resolution[2] and
October 24, 2007 Resolution[3] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00824.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On August 31, 1990, the Monetary Board (Board) issued a
Resolution[4] ordering
the closure of the Mindanao Savings and Loan Association (MSLA). The MSLA was placed under receivership with the president of
the Philippine Deposit and Insurance Corporation (PDIC) appointed as its
receiver.
On May 24, 1991, the Board issued
Resolution No. 600[5]
ordering the liquidation of the MSLA and designating the PDIC as its
liquidator. Accordingly, the PDIC filed
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 12, a Petition[6]
seeking from the said court assistance in the liquidation of the MSLA. On September 29, 1991, the trial court issued
an Order[7]
giving due course to PDIC's request for assistance.
On January 23, 1993, the RTC of Davao
City issued an Order[8]
reminding the PDIC to submit a liquidation plan approved by the Board. On February 3, 1993, the PDIC submitted a
copy of the Master Liquidation Plan for all Banks[9]
issued by the Board. On March 31, 1993,
the trial court issued another Order[10]
directing the PDIC to take appropriate steps to hasten the liquidation of the MSLA.
On June 18, 1993, the trial court issued
an Order[11]
directing the PDIC to take over and conduct an inventory of the assets, books,
papers and properties of the MSLA. In addition, it directed the PDIC to cause to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation a notice directing all
claimants, depositors and creditors of the MSLA to file their respective
claims.
On November 22, 1993, the PDIC
submitted to the RTC a copy of the Master Liquidation Plan[12]
for general application in the liquidation of all closed banking institutions.
On June 3, 1997, petitioner Atty. Reymundo Villarica
(Villarica), one of the claimants of the MSLA, filed a motion to dismiss the PDIC’s
petition.[13]
Villarica argued that the petition for liquidation should be dismissed because
of the PDIC’s failure to prosecute and/or to comply with the rules on
liquidation of a bank, the PDIC’s failure to comply with the lawful orders of
the RTC, and the PDIC’s unexplained delay in the liquidation of the MSLA.
On September 30, 1997, acting on Villarica's motion to
dismiss, the RTC issued an Order[14]
directing the PDIC to submit a liquidation plan and for it to show its
compliance with the requirements in the liquidation of a closed bank.
Thereafter, on July 1, 2003, the PDIC filed with the RTC a
Motion for Approval of Partial Project of Distribution.[15] In said
motion, the PDIC classified, among others, the claims of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR), Social Security System (SSS), PAG-IBIG and the National Home
Mortgage and Finance Corporation (NHMFC), under the category of trust funds.[16]
An Opposition[17] was
filed by petitioners-stockholders Dolores P. Torres,[18] Dr.
Guillermo P. Torres, University of Mindanao, Inc., Antonio M. Pilpil, Nancy C.
Te Eng Fo, Fe Azucena Marcelino and Evangeline F. Magallanes against the PDIC's
motion. In said Opposition, the petitioners-stockholders of the MSLA argued that the motion for the
approval of the partial project of distribution was improper and that the PDIC
should, instead, submit a project of distribution in compliance with its
earlier master liquidation plan.
On June 27, 2004, a Motion to Join as Claimants-Stockholders[19] was
filed by petitioners-stockholders Saturnino Petalcorin, Reynaldo M. Petalcorin,
Lilian M. Petalcorin-Castillo, Mary Ann M. Petalcorin-Ras, Neri Filipinas,
Vitaliano Malayo, Jr., Natividad Miranda and Antonio Ferrer, Jr. On April 19,
2004, another Motion to Join as Claimants-Stockholders[20] was
filed by petitioners-stockholders Carmencita E. Vidamo and Carmichael E.
Vidamo.
On November 5, 2003, the RTC issued an Order[21]
directing the PDIC to settle the claims of Mr. Felix Gonzales (Gonzales),[22] the
labor claims of the former employees of the MSLA,[23] and the
claim of the NHMFC.[24] All of these were uncontested by the PDIC.
On April 20, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution[25]
terminating the liquidation proceedings, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this liquidation proceeding is hereby terminated, dismissing the same for petitioner PDIC's failure to comply with the jurisdictional or mandatory requirements of inventory and publication, as well as the orders of this Court; ordering petitioner to pay the approved claims and the trust funds, and to deliver to MSLA and claimants-stockholders, all remaining MSLA funds, assets, properties and books, etc., in its possession for their disposition and distribution in the winding up of MSLA's affairs for its dissolution pursuant to law.
SO ORDERED.[26]
Aggrieved by the said Resolution, the PDIC filed a Notice of
Appeal[27] with
the RTC. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSP) also filed a Notice of Appeal.[28]
On July 4, 2005, the PDIC filed a Motion for Extension to
File Record on Appeal.[29] The same was granted by the RTC in an Order[30] dated
June 23, 2005.
On July 15, 2005, the PDIC filed its Record on Appeal.[31]
Oppositions were then filed.
On July 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order[32] denying
BSP’s Notice of Appeal, the pertinent portion of which reads:
x
x x x
Considering
that petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation has already filed its
Record on Appeal, the appeal of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has become
unnecessary. The claimants of the Mindanao Savings and Loan Association, Inc.
are, therefore, correct that the Notice of Appeal of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas should no longer be allowed.
WHEREFORE,
the notice of appeal of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is hereby denied
admission.[33]
On May 25,
2006, the RTC issued another Order[34]
approving PDIC's record of appeal, the pertinent portion of which reads:
Petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) filed a Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal within the reglementary period provided for by law, and taking into consideration the Comment/Opposition, Amended Comment, Supplemental to Amended Comment/Opposition to Petitioner's Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal filed by Plaintiff-Claimant, thereto, and the Reply and Rejoinder to Petitioner's Reply, the Court hereby resolves to approve the said Record on Appeal.
WHEREFORE, let the Record on Appeal, together with the transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings in this case, be forwarded to the Honorable Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
SO ORDERED.[35]
On September 14, 2006, the Chief of the Judicial Records
Division of the CA issued a Notice[36] that
the records of the case are “now complete and are at the disposal in the
Judicial Records Division for preparation of the required briefs.” Accordingly, the PDIC was ordered to file its
Appellant’s Brief.
On November 3, 2006, the PDIC filed a Motion for Extension
to File Appellant’s Brief.[37]
On November 16, 2006, petitioners-claimants-stockholders
(petitioners) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.[38] Petitioners argued that PDCI’s appeal should
be dismissed for its failure to comply with the mandatory or jurisdictional
requirement of filing with the Clerk of Court seven (7) legible copies of the
approved Record on Appeal, pursuant to Section 4,[39] Rule 44
and Section 1(d),[40] Rule 50
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On December 18, 2006, the PDIC filed a Second Motion for
Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief.[41]
Thereafter, petitioners filed a Comment[42] raising
other grounds in support of the dismissal of the appeal of the PDIC. Petitioners argued that the PDIC’s Record on
Appeal failed to show on its face the timely perfection of the appeal in
violation of Section 1(a), Rule 50, for failure to state: (1) the timely filing
of Notice of Appeal; (2) the timely filing of the appeal bond/fees; and (3) the
timely filing of the Record on Appeal. Moreover,
petitioners contended that the Notice of Appeal violated Section 1(b), Rule 50
of the Rules of Court, because it failed to state: (1) the timely filing of the
Notice of Appeal; (2) the timely payment of the appeal bond/fees; (3) the
timely filing of the Record on Appeal; (4) the appellees; and (5) the appellate
court of appeal.
On February 1, 2007, the PDIC filed its Appellant's Brief.
On July 6, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution denying
petitioners' motion to dismiss the appeal, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, claimants-appellees are granted a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution within which to file Appellees' Brief as they have prayed for in their Motion for Leave to File Appellees' Brief dated 24 April 2007.
SO ORDERED.[43]
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[44] which
was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution dated October 24, 2007.
Hence, herein petition, with petitioners raising the
following issues for this Court's resolution, to wit:
I.
THE HON. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISREGARDING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL BASED ON RESPONDENT PDIC'S DELIBERATE REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 4, RULE 44 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, OFFERING NO EXCUSE OR JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER FOR FAILING TO DO SO, BUT DEFIANTLY IGNORING SUCH COMPLIANCE AS IF THIS MANDATORY RULE WAS INCONSEQUENTIAL;
II.
THE HON. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE APPEAL WHEN RESPONDENT PDIC'S NOTICE OF APPEAL IS PATENTLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 5, RULE 41 OF 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE VIOLATING SEC. 1(b) OF RULE 50 OF THE SAID RULES, AND RENDERING THE HON. RESPONDENT COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE INVALID NOTICE OF APPEAL-WARRANTING DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL;
III.
THE HON. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL, FINDING RESPONDENT PDIC'S RECORD ON APPEAL TO HAVE INCLUDED THE DATA SHOWING ITS TIMELY PERFECTION REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 6, RULE 41 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHEN SAID RECORD ON APPEAL CLEARLY DOES NOT SHOW ON ITS FACE ITS TIMELY PERFECTION, WARRANTING ITS DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SEC. 1 (a) RULE 50 OF THE SAID 1997 RULES AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE.
IV.
THE HON. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS [OR] LACK OF JURISDICTION IN APPLYING THE RULING
IN THE CASE OF PRUDENTIAL BANK VS. BUSINESS ASSISTANCE GROUP, INC., G.R. NO.
158806, 16 DECEMBER 2004; IT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL APPLYING INSTEAD
THE JURISPRUDENCE ENUNCIATED IN THE CASES OF LAMZON VS. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION (307 SCRA 665), ANTONIO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (315
SCRA 62) AND PET PLANS, INC. ET AL. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 148287,
NOVEMBER 23, 2004, FOR RESPONDENT PDIC'S APPEAL IS FLIMSY AND FRIVOLOUS,
POINTLESS AND PURELY DILATORY, GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO PETITIONERS.[45]
The petition has no merit. At the
crux of the controversy is the determination of the propriety of the remedy of certiorari in order to assail the denial
of a motion to dismiss.
The denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash, being interlocutory,
cannot be questioned by certiorari. It cannot be the subject of appeal, until a
final judgment or order is rendered.[46] An interlocutory order may be assailed by certiorari or prohibition only when it
is shown that the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion. However, this Court generally frowns upon this
remedial measure as regards interlocutory orders. To tolerate the practice of
allowing interlocutory orders to be the subject of review by certiorari
will not only delay the administration of justice, but will also unduly burden
the courts.[47]
By
grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is
not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,
and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation
of law."[48]
Petitioners argue that the CA committed
grave abuse of discretion when it did not dismiss the appeal of the PDIC when
the latter failed to file seven copies of the approved record on appeal.
Petitioners contend that such omission violated Section 4, Rule 44 of the Rules
of Court which reads:
SEC. 4. Docketing
of case – Upon receiving the original record or the record on
appeal and the accompanying documents and exhibits transmitted by the lower
court, as well as the proof of payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the clerk
of court of the Court of Appeals shall docket the case and notify the parties
thereof.
Within
ten (10) days from receipt of said notice, the appellant, in appeals by record
on appeal, shall file with the clerk of court seven (7) clearly legible copies
of the approved record on appeal, together with the proof of service of two (2)
copies thereof upon the appellee.
Any unauthorized alteration, omission or addition in the approved record on appeal shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
Petitioners argue that since Section 4,
Rule 44 provides for the dismissal of an appeal in case of “any unauthorized
alterations, omissions and additions in the approved record on appeal,” with
more reason that an appeal should be dismissed in case of failure of an
appellant to file the requisite copies of the approved record thereof.
Petitioners’ argument is bereft of
merit.
Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, a plain reading of
Section 4, Rule 44 does not provide that non-submission of copies of the
approved record on appeal is a ground to dismiss an appeal. Quite plainly, the
rule only reads that should there be “any unauthorized alteration, omission or
addition in the approved record of appeal,” the same should be considered as a
ground for dismissal. Petitioners’ construction of the rules would unduly
extend its meaning and application as there is no mention therein that
non-submission of the required copies is a ground to dismiss an appeal. Moreover,
Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides
that rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. Indeed, rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate
justice.[49]
This Court cannot attribute to the CA grave abuse of discretion when simply
put, the rules does not provide that non-submission of the copies of the
approved record on appeal is a mandatory ground for the dismissal of an appeal.
Moroever, this Court observes that the PDIC filed on July 15,
2005 its record on appeal and that the same was approved by the RTC in an Order
dated May 25, 2006. The CA did not find the non-submission of the copies fatal
to PDIC’s appeal. In the same vein, this Court finds no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the CA for choosing not to dismiss the appeal as it
could just simply ask the PDIC to submit the required copies of the approved
record on appeal. In any case, it bears to stress that certiorari will not issue to correct errors of procedure.[50]
Anent the second issue raised by petitioners, the same is
without merit.
Petitioners contend that the PDIC’s notice of
appeal failed to comply with the formal requirements provided for in Section 5,
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners thus argue that the PDIC’s notice of
appeal should be considered a mere scrap of paper and treated as if no notice
of appeal was filed within the period prescribed under Section 1 (b), Rule 50
the Rules of Court.[51]
Section 5, Rule 41 reads:
Sec. 5. Notice of appeal. – The notice of appeal
shall indicate the parties to the appeal, specify the judgment or final order
or part thereof appealed from, specify the court to which the appeal is being
taken, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
On the other hand,
Section 1(b), Rule 50 reads:
Sec. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. – An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of
Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following
grounds:
x
x x x
(b) Failure to file the notice of appeal or the
record on appeal within the period prescribed by these Rules;
Specifically, petitioners point out that a perusal of the PDIC’s
notice of appeal would readily show that said notice failed to state:
a.
the timely filing of the notice of appeal;
b.
the timely payment of the appeal bond/fees;
c.
the timely filing of the record of appeal;
d.
the appellees; and
e.
the appellate court of appeal.[52]
The validity of the PDIC’s notice of appeal
has already been passed upon by the CA in its July 6, 2007 Resolution, which
affirmed the findings of the RTC. The pertinent portion of
said Resolution is hereunder reproduced, to wit:
The timeliness of the filing of petitioner-appellant's Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal has already been resolved by the court a quo in an Order dated 25 May 2006, which reads:
Petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) filed a Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal within the reglementary period provided for by law, and taking into consideration the Comment/Opposition, Amended Comment, Supplemental to Amended Comment/Opposition to Petitioner's Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal filed by Plaintiff-Claimant, thereto, and the Reply and Rejoinder to Petitioner's Reply, the Court hereby resolves to approve the said Record on Appeal. (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, let the Record on Appeal, together with the transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings in this case, be forwarded to the Honorable Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
SO ORDERED.
The Record on Appeal, consisting of seven (7) thick voluminous folders and totaling One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Three (1843) pages, was forwarded to this Court on 28 June 2006. A scrutiny thereof shows that the material(s) dates have been cited therein. The Record on Appeal also contains a copy of the assailed Resolution of the court a quo and a copy of the Notice of Appeal found on pages 1782 and 1795 thereof, respectively. Also, per Judicial Records Division (JRD) Report dated 25 June 2007, petitioner-appellant has fully paid its legal fees.
As such and also taking into consideration the Comment/Opposition filed by petitioner-appellant on 22 May 2007 and the Reply to Comment/Opposition filed by claimants-appellants on 4 June 2007, this Court deems petitioner-appellant to have substantially complied with the requirements for the perfection of its appeal.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.[53]
Again, this Court finds that the CA did not
abuse its discretion in finding that the PDIC had substantially complied with
the requirements for the perfection of its appeal. While it may be true that the
PDIC’s notice of appeal did not state on its face the appellate court to which
the appeal was being taken, the same is merely a formal error. Moreover, while
it is also true that on the face of the notice of appeal the timely filing
thereof, the timely filing of the appeal bond/fees, and the timely filing of
the record on appeal are all not stated, the same has already been resolved by
the CA when it declared that, “The
Record on Appeal, consisting of seven (7) thick voluminous folders and totaling
One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Three (1843) pages, was forwarded to this
Court on 28 June 2006. A scrutiny thereof shows that the material(s) dates have
been cited therein. The Record on Appeal also contains a copy of the assailed
Resolution of the court a quo and a copy of the Notice of Appeal found on pages
1782 and 1795 thereof, respectively. Also, per Judicial Records Division (JRD)
Report dated 25 June 2007, petitioner-appellant has fully paid its legal fees.” Moreover, the timely filing of the notice of
appeal and the record on appeal was resolved by the RTC when it declared that “Petitioner Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation (PDIC) filed a Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal
within the reglementary period provided for by law.”
In addition, petitioners’ argument that PDIC
should have furnished the notice of appeal not just to the
claimants-stockholders but also to the employees of MSLA, Gonzales, BIR, SSS,
PAG-IBIG and NHMFC is not meritorious. As correctly observed by PDIC, the claim
of the employees of MSLA is a labor claim and was not originally filed with the
liquidation court. Moreover, the claim of Gonzales is already final and was
earlier approved by the RTC in an Order[54]
dated May 29, 1998. Lastly, the unremitted taxes due the BIR, unremitted
premiums and salary loan payments due SSS, unremitted premiums and salary loan
payments due PAG-IBIG, and unremitted loan amortizations due NHMFC fall under
the category of trust. Said amounts were already set aside by PDIC for payment
as seen in its July 1, 2003 Motion for Approval of Partial Project of Distribution. Assets held in trust do not form part of the
assets of MSLA which are to be distributed to its general creditors. Such being
the case, since the BIR, SSS, PAG-IBIG and NHMFC are not considered creditors
of MSLA, they need not be furnished copies of the notice of appeal. The same,
however, does not follow for petitioners-claimants-stockholders, who, being
creditors of the MSLA, were correctly served with copies of the notice of
appeal. Moreover,
it bears to point out that if there is any party who should object to their
non-inclusion to the PDIC’s notice of appeal, such cause of action belongs to
the parties who were allegedly omitted. However, a perusal of the records would
show that the parties concerned interposed no objection to their non-inclusion.
Consequently, this Court finds that the CA did not act with grave abuse of
discretion when it ruled not to dismiss the PDIC’s appeal based on the said
ground.
Anent
the third error raised by petitioners, the same is again without merit.
Petitioners argue that the PDIC’s record of appeal is defective for failure to
state (1) when the notice of appeal was filed; (2) when the appellate court and
docket fees were paid; and (3) when the record on appeal was filed. Moreover, petitioners argue that the PDIC did
not include a copy of the May 25, 2006 RTC Order approving the Record of
Appeal. Petitioners thus theorize that the PDIC violated Section 6,[55]
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and that the same warrants dismissal under
Section 1 (a) of Rule 50.
Section 1 (a) reads:
Sec. 1. Grounds
for dismissal of appeal. – An
appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on
that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
(a)
Failure
of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was taken within
the period fixed by these Rules;[56]
To stress, the CA ruled that “the Record on Appeal, consisting of
seven (7) thick voluminous folders and totaling One Thousand Eight Hundred
Forty-Three (1843) pages, was forwarded to this Court on 28 June 2006. A
scrutiny thereof shows that the material(s) dates have been cited therein. The
Record on Appeal also contains a copy of the assailed Resolution of the court a
quo and a copy of the Notice of Appeal found on pages 1782 and 1795 thereof,
respectively. Also, per Judicial Records Division (JRD) Report dated 25 June
2007, petitioner-appellant has fully paid its legal fees.”
Moreover, the RTC found that both the notice of appeal and record on appeal
were filed within the reglementary period provided by law.
The findings of the CA that the PDIC substantially
complied with the requirements for an appeal must be respected. There can be no
grave abuse of discretion attributed to it more so since the grounds for
dismissing an appeal under Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court are
discretionary upon the CA. This can be gleaned from the very language of the
Rules which uses the word may instead of shall. In De Leon v.
Court of Appeals,[57]
we held that Section 1, Rule 50, which provides specific grounds for dismissal
of appeal, manifestly "confers a power and does not impose a duty. Moreover,
it is directory, not mandatory." With the exception of Section 1(b), the
grounds for the dismissal of an appeal are directory and not mandatory, and it
is not the ministerial duty of the court to dismiss the appeal.[58]
Based on the RTC’s findings as well as its own independent assessment of the PDIC’s
appeal, it was discretionary on the CA whether or not to dismiss the appeal. In
ruling to accept the PDIC’s appeal, such action does not constitute capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Lastly,
petitioners would have this Court apply the jurisprudence enunciated in Lamzon v. NLRC (Lamzon),[59]
Antonio v. Comelec (Antonio)[60] and Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (Pet Plans),[61]
however, a perusal of the said decisions would show that the same are not at
fours with herein petition. In Lamzon,
the appeal filed was not perfected within the reglementary period because the
appeal bond was filed out of time. In Antonio,
the appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of time under Comelec rules.
In Pet Plans, the appeal was
dismissed for failure to comply with the rules on verification and certificate
of non-forum shopping. The present petition, on the other hand, involves
substantial compliance to the form and contents of the notice of appeal and
record on appeal. The decisions relied upon by petitioners, therefore, have no
application to herein petition.
In sum, this Court finds that the CA
did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners motion to
dismiss. In the absence of abuse of discretion, interlocutory orders such as a
motion to dismiss are not the proper subject of a petition for certiorari. Time and
again, this Court has ruled that dismissal
of appeals on purely technical grounds is not encouraged. The rules of
procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid and technical sense, for they
have been adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. Judicial
action must be guided by the principle that a party-litigant should be given
the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense
rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities.
When a rigid application of the rules tends to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, this Court is empowered to suspend their operation.[62]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered the petition is DISMISSED. The July 6, 2007 Resolution and October 24,
2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 00824, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA ROBERTO
A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-46.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring; id. at 53-55.
[3] Id. at 58-62.
[4] Rollo, p. 93.
[5] Id. at 94.
[6] Id. at 87- 92.
[7] Id. at 95.
[8] Id. at 96.
[9] Id. at 98-110.
[10] Id. at 111.
[11] Id. at 112.
[12] Id. at 115-123.
[13] Records, Volume II, pp. 206-208.
[14] Rollo, pp. 125-126.
[15] Id. at 154-169.
[16] See Schedule of Trust Funds; records, p. 985.
[17] Rollo, pp. 206-212.
[18] Substituted by Atty. Victor Nicasio Torres and Dr. Guillermo P. Torres; See rollo, pp. 361-364.
[19] Rollo, pp. 221-223.
[20] Id. at 225-226.
[21] Records, p. 1137.
[22] Based on the Decision of RTC, Branch 8, Davao City in “Felix
Gonzales vs. D.S. Homes, Inc. Mindanao Savings and Loan Association and Francisco
Villamor”; Docketed as Civil Case No. 20, 168-90; Amounting to P965,924.
43.
[23] Amounting to P2,965,834.25.
[24] Amounting to P15,120.38.
[25] Rollo, pp. 231-240.
[26] Id. at 239-240.
[27] Id. at 241-242.
[28] Records, p. 1802.
[29] Id. at 1804-1808.
[30] Id. at 1822.
[31] See Records, Volume I, with Annexes.
[32] CA rollo, pp. 528-529.
[33] Id. at 528.
[34] Rollo, pp. 494-495.
[35] Id. at 494.
[36] Id. at 249.
[37] Id. at 250-252.
[38] Id. at 253-256.
[39] SEC. 4. Docketing of case. – Upon receiving the original record or the record on appeal and the accompanying documents and exhibits transmitted by the lower court, as well as the proof of payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall docket the case and notify the parties thereof.
Within ten (10) days from receipt of said notice, the appellant, in appeals by record on appeal, shall file with the clerk of court seven (7) clearly legible copies of the approved record on appeal, together with the proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.
Any unauthorized alteration, omission or addition in the approved record on appeal shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.”
[40] SEC. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal- An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
x x x x
(d) Unauthorized alterations, omissions or additions in the approved record on appeal as provided in section 4 of Rule 44.
[41] Rollo, pp. 257-258.
[43] Id. at 55.
[44] Id. at 345-347.
[45] Id. at 18-19.
[46] Santiago Land Development Co. v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 38, 44 (1996).
[47] Lee v. People, 441 Phil. 705, 713-714 (2002).
[48] Solvic Industrial Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125548, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 432, 441.
[49] Mendoza v. David, 484 Phil. 128, 137 (2004).
[50] La Campana Development Corporation v. See, G.R. No. 149195, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 584, 590.
[51] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[52] Id. at 24.
[53] Id. at 54-55.
[54] Records, pp. 463-465.
[55] Sec. 6. Record on appeal; form and contents thereof. - The full names of all the
parties to the proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the record on
appeal and it shall include the judgment or final order from which the appeal
is taken and, in chronological order, copies of only such pleadings, petitions,
motions and all interlocutory orders as are related to the appealed judgment or
final order for the proper understanding of the issue involved, together with
such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time. If an issue of
fact is to be raised on appeal, the record on appeal shall include by reference
all the evidence, testimonial and documentary, taken upon the issue involved.
The reference shall specify the documentary evidence by the exhibit numbers or
letters by which it was identified when admitted or offered at the hearing, and
the testimonial evidence by the names of the corresponding witnesses. If the
whole testimonial and documentary evidence in the case is to be included, a
statement to that effect will be sufficient without mentioning the names of the
witnesses or the numbers or letters of exhibits. Every record on appeal
exceeding twenty (20) pages must contain a subject index.
[56] Underscoring supplied.
[57] 432 Phil. 775, 789 (2002).
[58] Id. at 230.
[59] 373 Phil. 680 (1999).
[60] 486 Phil. 112 (2004).
[61] G.R. No. 148287, November 23, 2004, 443 SCRA 510.
[62] Heirs of Victoriana Villagracia v. Equitable Banking Corporation; G.R. No. 136972, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 60, 69.