G.R. No.

95533               November 20, 2000

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

On December 28, 1988, a complaint for escheat was filed by petitioner, Republic of the Philippines,
1 

with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City against several banks which had branches within the
jurisdiction of the said court.2

The complaint alleged that pursuant to Act No. 3936 as amended by P.D. 679, the respective
3 

managers of the defendant banks submitted to the Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines
separate statements prepared under oath which listed all deposits and credits held by them in favor
of depositors or creditors either known to be dead, have not been heard from, or have not made
depositors or withdrawals for ten years or more since December 31, 1970.

The complaint prayed that after due notice to the defendant banks, and after hearing, judgment be
rendered declaring that the deposits, credits and unpaid balances in question be escheated to
petitioner, commanding defendant banks to forthwith deposit the same with the Treasurer of the
Philippines.4

On April 12, 1989, the lower court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why the
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. According to the order, the
complaint contained no allegation that defendant banks have complied with two of the conditions in
Section 2 of Act No. 3936, compliance with the requirements being necessary for the complaint to
5 

prosper.6

On April 27, 1989, petitioner submitted its manifestation and motion to allow amendment of the
petition to allege compliance with the conditions set forth in Section 2 of Act. No. 3936 as amended
by P.D. 679 ("Unclaimed Balances Law"). 7

The amended complaint prayed that judgment be rendered ordering that the amount of P97,263.38,
deposited with the defendant banks by depositors who are known to be dead or have not made
further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten years or more be escheated in favor of the
Republic of the Philippines in accordance with Section 1, Act 3936 as amended by P.D. 679.

The trial court found the amendment sufficient and issued an order dated June 7, 1989 requiring
petitioner to publish a notice in the Mindanao Forum Standard once a week for two consecutive
weeks, containing the summons, notice to the public, the amended petition incorporated in the
summons and the list of unclaimed balances. The notice was estimated to occupy 27 pages of the
said newspaper at an estimated cost of P50,000.00. 8

On July 11, 1989, petitioner submitted a manifestation to the lower court praying that the publication
of the list of the unclaimed balances be dispensed with. Petitioner posited that under Section 3, Act
No. 3936, only the following are required to be published: (1) summons to respondent banks; and (2)
notice to all persons other than those named defendants therein. Petitioner submitted that to require
it to publish the names and list of unclaimed balances would only result in additional and
unnecessary expense to the government. 9

On August 1, 1989, the trial court issued the following Order:

"WHEREFORE, this Court will not dispense with the publication of the list of unclaimed balances
and, unless the plaintiff, through the Office of the Solicitor General, agrees to the publication thereof
as stated in the Order of this Court dated June 7, 1989, and shoulder the cost thereof as also
mentioned in said Order, and manifests its agreement to this Court in writing within thirty (30) days
from receipt thereof, this case will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED."

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above Order, which was denied by the lower court
10 

for lack of merit. 11

Subsequently, the trial court issued an Order dated October 31, 1989 dismissing Civil Case No.
19488-89 without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to agree to the required publication and shoulder the
costs thereof. 12

Petitioner received a copy of the aforesaid Order on November 15, 1989. On January 10, 1990,
petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus and certiorari, alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge in ordering the publication of the list of unclaimed
balances. The petition for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on the
13 

ground that the proper remedy was ordinary appeal. Thus: 14

It is axiomatic that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is available only in the absence of a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy like appeal. The order of the respondent court dated October 31, 1989
dismissing the case is final and appealable (Monares vs. CWA Enterpises, 105 Phil. 1333; Vol. I,
Francisco, Rules of Court, at pp. 967-968). No timely appeal having been taken therefrom, the same
became final and executory and this petition for certiorari filed on January 10, 1989 to review the
interlocutory orders issued by the court before the case was dismissed can no longer be entertained.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising the following
issues:15

(1) Whether or not respondent RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount
to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the publication of the list of unclaimed balances listed under
annexes "A" to "P" of the complaint.

(2) Whether or not the remedy of appeal, though available, was the speedy and adequate
remedy.

(3) Whether or not respondent RTC judge in issuing the interlocutory orders dated June 7,
1989 and August 1, 1990 – which are contrary to Sec. 1, Act 3936, as amended by PD 679,
otherwise known as the "Unclaimed Balances Law" acted in excess of and without
jurisdiction; consequently thus making the Orders of Sept. 1, 1989 (denying the motion for
 reconsideration) and the Order dated October 31, 1989 dismissing the case, patently null
and void.

(4) Whether or not the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals is in accord with law.

The petition is without merit.

The Order of the trial court dismissing the complaint, albeit without prejudice, was a final order in the
sense that it finally disposed of the case. As such, petitioner’s remedy was to file an ordinary appeal
to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.

This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order if no
motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed.

In Olympia International vs. Court of Appeals, we stated thus:

The dismissal without prejudice of a complaint does not however mean that said dismissal order was
any less final.  Such order of dismissal is complete in all details, and though without prejudice,
1ªvvph!1

nonetheless finally disposed of the matter. It was not merely an interlocutory order but a final
disposition of the complaint.

The law grants an aggrieved party a period of fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the court’s
decision or order disposing of the action or proceeding to appeal or move to reconsider the same.

After the lapse of the fifteen-day period, an order becomes final and executory and is beyond the
power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further amend or revoke. A final judgment or
order cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification sought is for the purpose of
correcting an erroneous conclusion by the court which rendered the same.

Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err when it dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus,
on the ground that the proper remedy was to appeal within fifteen (15) days. The lapse of the
reglementary period was of no moment. A basic requisite for the special civil action of certiorari to lie
is that there be no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Certiorari is a remedy of last recourse and is a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep
inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. It is not
intended to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judge’s findings or conclusions. 17

In a more recent case,this Court held:

xxx xxx xxx. Apparently, petitioner resorted to this special civil action because it had failed to take an
appeal within the 15-day reglementary period which expired on June 20, 1997. This, of course,
cannot be done. The special civil action of certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal
which petitioner has lost. Nor can it be contended that the only question raised in this case is a
jurisdictional question. Certiorari lies only where there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. There is no reason why the question being raised by
petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
petitions, could not have been raised by it on appeal. 18

Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the
interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule
45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review. In the case at bar,
19 
there is no compelling reason for the Court of Appeals to have treated the petition for certiorari and
mandamus as an ordinary appeal. Aside from being filed beyond the fifteen (15) day period, the
petition failed to show that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion or want or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Order dismissing the complaint. If at all, any mistake therein was
an error of judgment or procedure, which is correctible in an ordinary appeal filed in due time.

The publication of the list of unclaimed balances is intended to safeguard the right of the depositors,
their heirs and successors to due process. This was made clear by the lower court in its assailed
20 

Order, to wit:21

Moreover, how would other persons who may have an interest in any of the unclaimed balances
know what this case is all about and whether they have an interest in this case if the amended
complaint and list of unclaimed balances are not published? Such other persons may be heirs of the
bank depositors named in the list of unclaimed balances.

x x x           x x x          x x x

The fact that the government is in a tight financial situation is not a justification for this Court to
dispense with the elementary rule of due process.

As declared by the trial court in its Order dated August 1, 1989, the dismissal of the petition for
escheat is without prejudice.  In other words, the State can refile the said petition, notwithstanding
1âwphi1

the lapse of time. Prescription of action does not run against the government. 22

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 14, 1990
is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

FACTS:

A complaint for escheat was filed by petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, against several banks.
Pursuant to Act No. 3936 as amended by P.D. 679, the respective managers of the defendant banks
submitted to the Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines separate statements prepared under oath
which listed all deposits and credits held by them in favor of depositors or creditors either known to be
dead, have not been heard from, or have not made depositors or withdrawals for ten years or more
since December 31, 1970. The amended complaint prayed that judgment be rendered ordering that the
amount of P97,263.38, deposited with the defendant banks by depositors who are known to be dead or
have not made further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten years or more be escheated in
favor of the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with Section 1, Act 3936 as amended by P.D. 679.

The trial court found the amendment sufficient and issued an order requiring petitioner to publish a
notice in the Mindanao Forum Standard once a week for two consecutive weeks, containing the
summons, notice to the public, the amended petition incorporated in the summons and the list of
unclaimed balances. The notice was estimated to occupy 27 pages of the said newspaper at an
estimated cost of P50,000.00.

petitioner submitted a manifestation to the lower court praying that the publication of the list of the
unclaimed balances be dispensed with. Petitioner posited that under Section 3, Act No. 3936, only the
following are required to be published: (1) summons to respondent banks; and (2) notice to all persons
other than those named defendants therein. Petitioner submitted that to require it to publish the names
and list of unclaimed balances would only result in additional and unnecessary expense to the
government.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the publication of the list of unclaimed balances can be dispensed with.

RULING:

No. The publication of the list of unclaimed balances is intended to safeguard the right of the depositors,
their heirs and successors to due process. This was made clear by the lower court in its assailed Order,
to wit:

Moreover, how would other persons who may have an interest in any of the unclaimed balances know
what this case is all about and whether they have an interest in this case if the amended complaint and
list of unclaimed balances are not published? Such other persons may be heirs of the bank depositors
named in the list of unclaimed balances.

The fact that the government is in a tight financial situation is not a justification for this Court to
dispense with the elementary rule of due process.