Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pendentia (3) Pari Delicto (4) Failure To Implead Indispensable
Pendentia (3) Pari Delicto (4) Failure To Implead Indispensable
June 23, 2000] The instant case originated from the sale by Banco Filipino to
Tala Realty of four (4) lots in Iloilo City, covered and described in
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE
the aforementioned TCT Nos. 62273 and 62274, for two million
BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EDGAR D.
one hundred ten thousand pesos (P2,110,000.00).[8] Tala Realty
GUSTILO, Presiding Judge, Branch 28, Regional Trial Court,
then leased them back to Banco Filipino for a monthly rental of
Iloilo City, TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION,
twenty one thousand pesos (P21,000.00) /for a period of twenty
NANCY L. TY, PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, REMEDIOS A.
(20) years and renewable for another twenty (20) years.[9] The
DUPASQUIER, PILAR D. ONGKING, ELIZABETH H. PALMA,
lease contracts of the other branch sites sold to Tala Realty have
DOLLY W. LIM, RUBENCITO M. DEL MUNDO, ADD
substantially similar terms and conditions, except for the amount
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC., respondents.
of the rent.
DECISION
Banco Filipino alleges that a trust was created by virtue of the
DE LEON, JR., J.: above transactions. Tala Realty was allegedly established to
serve as a corporate medium to warehouse the legal title of the
Before us is a special civil action for certiorari to set aside and said properties for the beneficial interest of Banco Filipino and to
annul the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals dated December 18, purchase properties to be held in trust for the latter.[10]
1996, which sustained the dismissal [2] of the complaint of
petitioner Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (hereafter, However, sometime in August 1992, Tala Realty demanded
Banco Filipino) for recovery of real properties filed against Tala payment of increased rentals, deposits and goodwill from Banco
Realty Services Corporation (hereafter, Tala Realty) on the Filipino, with a threat of ejectment in case of failure to comply
grounds of litis pendentia and forum-shopping. thereto. On April 20, 1994, some stockholders of Banco Filipino
filed a derivative suit against Tala Realty before the SEC for the
The antecedent facts are the following: reconveyance of the properties sold by the former to the latter.
The General Banking Act [3] regulates the number of branches However, on March 6, 1995, the SEC dismissed the case on the
that a bank may operate. Under the said law, a bank is allowed ground of lack of jurisdiction.[11]
to own the land and the improvements thereon used as branch Due to Banco Filipinos failure to comply with Tala Realtys terms,
sites but only up to a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of the banks the latter carried out its threat by filing numerous ejectment suits
net worth. against Banco Filipino.[12] This prompted Banco Filipino to file, on
In 1979, Banco Filipino had reached the allowable limit in branch August 16, 1995, an action for recovery of real
site holdings but contemplated further expansion of its properties[13] before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 28,
operations. Consequently, it unloaded some of its holdings to on the ground of breach of trust. Incidentally, during the period
Tala Realty. Banco Filipino thereafter leased the same branch from August to September 1995, Banco Filipino also filed sixteen
sites from Tala Realty which was conceived and organized (16) other complaints for recovery of real properties which it had
Shortly thereafter, the board of directors of Banco As regards Banco Filipinos complaint in the Regional Trial Court
Filipino authorized negotiations for the sale of some of of Iloilo City, Tala Realty filed on October 9, 1995 a motion to
its branch sites, through a Board Resolution [6] dismiss on the following grounds: (1) forum-shopping; (2) litis
dated April 17, 1979 (hereafter, Board Resolution). pendentia; (3) pari delicto; (4) failure to implead indispensable
parties; and (5) failure to state a cause of action.[16] On the same
On August 25, 1981, respondent Banco Filipino sold the above date, private repondents Pilar D. Ongking, Elizabeth H. Palma,
branch sites to Tala Realty under separate deeds of sale for each Dolly W. Lim and Rubencito del Mundo filed a separate motion to
branch site. On the same date, Tala Realty leased the same dismiss in the same case on the following grounds: (1) lack of
branch sites to Banco Filipino under separate instruments for jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) litis pendentia; and (3)
each branch site.[7] failure to state a cause of action.[17] Likewise, on November 10,
1995, private respondent Nancy L. Ty filed a separate motion to
dismiss, alleging the same grounds as those invoked by private reglementary period and its belated recourse to a petition
respondents Ongking, et. al.[18] for certiorari under Rule 65 was interpreted by the Court of
Appeals as a desperate attempt by Banco Filipino to resurrect
These motions to dismiss alleged, among others, that aside from
what was otherwise already a lost appeal.[24] Furthermore, the
the said suit before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch
Court of Appeals debunked Banco Filipinos theory that the
28, other suits involving certain Quezon City, Lucena City,
assailed order of the RTC did not comply with the substantive
Malolos and Manila branches of Banco Filipino are also pending
requirements of the Constitution, and was thus, rendered with
in other Regional Trial Courts.
grave abuse of discretion.
Banco Filipino filed separate oppositions, dated October 14,
On December 28, 1996, Banco Filipino received a copy of the
1995, October 31, 1995 and November 21, 1995 respectively, to
Court of Appeals decision dismissing its petition thereby
the motions to dismiss.[19] After a protracted exchange of
prompting the latter to file a motion for reconsideration on January
pleadings, the trial court dismissed the complaint on April 22,
10, 1997. The Court of Appeals denied the said motion for
1996 in this wise:[20]
reconsideration on December 19, 1997 in a resolution, a copy of
A thorough and careful perusal was made by the which was received by Banco Filipino on January 7,
undersigned Presiding Judge of the arguments of 1998.[25] Banco Filipino then filed with this Court its subject
opposing counsels, ventilated in their respective petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
memoranda. Opposing counsels cited the pertinent on March 9, 1998.[26]
Supreme Court Circulars, provisions of the Rules of
Petitioner advances the following arguments:
Court and related Decisions of the Supreme Court
in support of their arguments. I......RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CORRECT BY
After weighing the foregoing, this Court is of the
CERTIORARI THE DISMISSAL ORDER BY THE RTC
opinion and so holds that the contention of the
WHICH PATENTLY DISREGARDED THE
defendants in their motions to dismiss, etc., is
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESCRIPTION AS TO FORM
meritorious.
AND JUDGMENT, AND EFFECTIVELY DENIED
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the defendants PETITIONER DUE PROCESS OF LAW;[27]
separate motions to dismiss are hereby granted.
II......BANCO FILIPINO WAS DENIED THE
Therefore, let this case be, as it is hereby OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE ITS CAUSE OF ACTION
Dismissed. OF AN IMPLIED TRUST;[28]
However, the Court of Appeals dismissed Banco Filipinos petition Without need of delving into the merits of the case, this Court
on the ground, among others, that the "[p]etitioners recourse to hereby dismisses the instant petition. For in filing a special civil
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is patently action for certiorari instead of an ordinary appeal before this
malapropos."[23] It reiterated the rule that a special civil action Court, Banco Filipino violated basic tenets of remedial law that
for certiorari may be resorted to only when there is no appeal, nor merited the dismissal of its petition.
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
First. Banco Filipinos proper remedy from the adverse resolutions
law. Banco Filipinos failure to appeal by writ of error within the
of the Court of Appeals is an ordinary appeal to this Court via a
petition for review under Rule 45 and not a petition The antithetic character of the remedies of appeal
for certiorari under Rule 65. and certiorari has been generally observed by this Court save
only in those rare instances where appeal is satisfactorily shown
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal, board
to be an inadequate remedy. In the case at bar, Banco Filipino
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
has failed to show any valid reason why the issues raised in its
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
petition for certiorari could not have been raised on appeal. To
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is
justify its resort to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule
no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
65, it erroneously claims that an appeal is not a speedy and
ordinary course of law.[31]
adequate remedy because further delay in the disposition of this
We have said time and again that for the extraordinary remedy case would effectively deprive Banco Filipino of the full use and
of certiorari to lie by reason of grave abuse of discretion, the enjoyment of its properties.[37] However, the further delay that
abuse of discretion, must be so patent and gross as to amount to would inadvertently result from the dismissal of the instant
an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the petition is one purely of Banco Filipinos own doing. We cannot
duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the power countenance an intentional departure from established rules of
is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of procedure simply to accommodate a case that has long been
passion and personal hostility.[32] pending in the courts of law because of the partys own fault or
negligence.
Nothing in the record of this case supports Banco Filipinos bare
assertion that the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Third. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lapsed or
resolutions with grave abuse of discretion. On the contrary, lost remedy of appeal. Banco Filipinos recourse to a special civil
Banco Filipino even admitted that the Court of Appeals action for certiorari was borne not out of the conviction that grave
painstakingly "labored to defend in thirty-three (33) [single abuse of discretion attended the resolution of its petition before
spaced] pages"[33]the rationale behind its decision, clearly setting the Court of Appeals but simply because of its failure to file a
forth therein the applicable provisions of law and jurisprudence. timely appeal to this Court. This observation is shared by the
In other words, there being no grave abuse of discretion on its Court of Appeals which was quick to point out that when Banco
part, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed resolutions in Filipino filed its petition for certiorariassailing the RTC order, the
the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence, even if erroneous, reglementary period for filing a petition for review before the Court
the Court of Appeals resolutions can only be assailed by means of Appeals had already lapsed.
of a petition for review. The distinction is clear: a petition
It is true that this Court may treat a petition for certiorari as having
for certiorari seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction while a petition
been filed under Rule 45 to serve the higher interest of justice,
for review seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the
but not when the petition is filed well beyond the reglementary
court. Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes
period for filing a petition for review and without offering any
in the courts findings.[34] Where a court has jurisdiction over the
reason therefor.
person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions
arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure
Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of such should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at
jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment.[35] least explain its failure to comply with the rules. In the case at bar,
Banco Filipinos petition is bereft of any valid reason or
Second. The availability to Banco Filipino of the remedy of a
explanation as to why it failed to properly observe the rules of
petition for review from the decision of the Court of Appeals
procedure. The record shows that Banco Filipino failed, not once
effectively foreclosed its right to resort to a petition for certiorari.
but twice, and for an unreasonable length of time, to file an appeal
This Court has often enough reminded members of the bench
within the period required by law. From the order of the RTC, it
and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies
filed its petition for certiorari some fourteen (14) days after the
only when there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate
lapse of the reglementary period to appeal to the Court of
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is not allowed
Appeals. Likewise, when Banco Filipino filed its petition
when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the
for certiorari before this Court, forty five (45) days have already
availability of that remedy. The remedies of appeal
passed since the end of the fifteen (15) day reglementary period
and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or
for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court.
successive.[36]
Allowing appeals, although filed late in some rare cases, may not SPOUSES JOSE R. LANSANG, JR. and ELSIE D. LANSANG
be applied to Banco Filipino in the case at bar for this rule is and ROBERTO CO, petitioners,
qualified by the requirement that there must be exceptional vs.
circumstances to justify the relaxation of the rules.[38] We cannot THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL L.
find any such exceptional circumstances in this case and neither GUMBAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the
has Banco Filipino endeavored to prove the existence of any. Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch XXIII,
This being so, another elementary rule of procedure applies and RENATO SALANGSANG and INTERWORLD ASSURANCE
that is the doctrine that perfection of an appeal within the CORP., represented by EVANGELINE B.
reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional BACONGCO respondents.
so that failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and
Niceto C. Joaquin for petitioners.
executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter
Rosalio Carino for private respondent.
the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal.[39]
The case at bench, given its own factual settings What at the beginning was a simple action for damages in the
cannot come close to those extraordinary amount of P30,000.00 ended up in the fantastic amount of
circumstances that have indeed justified a deviation P600,000.00 simply because the trial court denied defendant
from an otherwise stringent rule. Let it not be another day in court and the appellate court did not believe that
overlooked that the timeliness of an appeal is a a petition for certiorari can be filed after a case had been
jurisdictional caveat that not even this Court can appealed.
trifle with.[40] (Underscoring provided.)
The antecedents are undisputed. Private respondent Renato
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby Salangsang filed an action for damages arising from a vehicular
DISMISSED. accident against petitioners in the Regional Trial Court of South
Cotabato. In his answer, petitioner filed a third party complaint
SO ORDERED.
against private respondent insurance corporation. The pre-trial
was held but no settlement was reached. Trial commenced and
private respondent Salansang presented his evidence.
While it appears that the vehicle of petitioners hit the car of private
respondent while parked it is contended by petitioners that it was
parked in a prohibited zone. Assuming the petitioners to be at
fault, they contend the additional damage of P250.00 per day is
unconscionable in addition to the actual damage to the car of
P19,500.00 and P10,000.00 attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation. They estimate the damage awarded can run up to the
amount of P600,000.00.