G.R. No. 218901. February 15, 2017.* PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. HONORIO E. GUANLAO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 56, TRAYELLER KIDS INC., CELY L. GABALDON-CO and JEANNIE L. LUGMOC, respondents.

 Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Under exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the rules will result in manifest injustice, the Supreme Court (SC) may set aside technicalities and proceed with the appeal.—Under exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the rules will result in manifest injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities and proceed with the appeal. In Tanenglian v. Lorenzo, 550 SCRA 348 (2008), the Court recognized the broader interest of justice and gave due course to the appeal even if it was a wrong mode of appeal and was even filed beyond the reglementary period provided by the rules.

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; 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 welldefined exceptions established by jurisprudence.—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 courtl ther are well defined exceptions established by jurisprudence such as 

a. where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Mandamus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.    Alba and Partners for petitioner. Bohol, Bohol II, Jimenez Law Offices for private respondents. CAGUIOA, J.:

This case originated from a Complaint 5 for collection of a sum of money in the amount of P8,971,118.06 filed by PBCOM against private respondents before the RTC

 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. 6

RTC issued an Order 7 directing PBCOM to pay additional docket fees in the amount of P24,765.70, within fifteen days from receipt o

On October 21, 2010, PBCOM paid the additional docket fees but filed its Compliance with the RTC only on November 11, 2010

RTC issued an Order dated November 4, 2010,9 dismissing PBCOM’s Complaint, which reads: For failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Order dated September 29, 2010, this case is hereby DISMISSED

H e n c e , t h e s u b j e c t O fficial R e c eip t is highly ir r egula r.”

PBCOM filed a Notice of Appeal

RTC - NOA is not the proper remedy

Without filing a motion for reconsideration, PBCOM filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA.

CA-denied

The CA emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for a petition for certiorari to prosper.

PBCOM filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 of the aforesaid Decision, but the same was denied by the CA for having been filed out of time.19

Hence, the present petition for certiorari and mandamus

 RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DENIED PBCOM’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS FILED ONE (1) DAY LATE.

Prefatorily, the Court notes that PBCOM availed of the wrong mode of appeal in bringing the case before the Court. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy

The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.

On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45

cordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright. 23

However, under exceptional circumstances, as when stringent application of the rules will result in manifest injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities and proceed with the appeal.

In cases where we dispense with the technicalities, we do not mean to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by law. In those rare cases where we did not stringently apply the procedural rules, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of a grave injustice. Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just and proper disposition of his cause. x x x

The Court has allowed some meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent procedural defects and lapses. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend

Considering that what is at stake in the present case is PBCOM’s statutory right to appeal and the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of its cause, the Court resolves to set aside PBCOM’s procedural mistake and give due course to its petition

Notably, in its petition before the CA, PBCOM assailed the RTC Order denying due course to its notice of appeal. In Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso , 2 8 this Court ruled that 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. 2 9 Clearly, contrary to the CA’s finding, PBCOM availed itself of the correct remedy in questioning the disallowance of its notice of appeal.

Moreover, 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; 3 0 there are well-defined exceptions established by jurisprudence, such as (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a qu o has no jurisdiction ; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in 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 or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (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 and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (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. 3 1

The first exception applies in this case. Rule 41, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure states: SEC. 13. Dismissal of appeal.—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 for having been taken out of time or for nonpayment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. 32

 

In fine, the assailed RTC Order, denying due course to PBCOM’s notice of appeal on the ground that it was a wrong remedy, is a patent nullity. The RTC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.

SC DIRECTED to give due course to petitioner’s Notice of Appeal dated May 26, 2011 and to elevate the case records to the Court of Appeals for the review of petitioner’s appeal