SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236429. April 23, 2018.]
HAZEL JOAN LIAO CEMBRANO, petitioner,vs. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 April 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 236429 (Hazel Joan Liao Cembrano vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company). — Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Hazel Joan Cembrano (Cembrano) assailing the twin resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 15, 2017 2 and December 6, 2017 3 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 10684 UDK. In these resolutions, the CA dismissed Cembrano's petition for certiorari.
The Antecedents
On January 6, 2016, Cembrano was served a Commencement Order 4 as a creditor of EHD Logistics, Inc. (EHD) which was undergoing rehabilitation proceedings before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 39. The rehabilitation proceedings were docketed as SCC Case No. 16-071.
Despite receipt of the Commencement Order, on January 17, 2016, Cembrano deposited in her Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) account five certified crossed checks totaling Twenty-Seven Million Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P27,600,000.00) dated January 6, 2016 issued by EHD. 5
Metrobank dishonored the five checks deposited by Cembrano. Metrobank noted uniformly on the said checks that the reason for the dishonor was because of "DAIF/STAYORDER." 6
On March 1, 2016, Cembrano filed a complaint against Metrobank for the recovery of a sum of money and damages. 7 The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 16-33013.
On October 13, 2016, the RTC in Civil Case No. 16-33013 issued an Order 8 suspending the hearing of the case until the Commencement Order issued by the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 38, in SCC Case No. 16-071 is lifted, or the rehabilitation proceedings of BHD are terminated. On November 9, 2016, Cembrano moved for reconsideration.
On December 29, 2016, the RTC issued an Order 9 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration on the Order dated October 13, 2016. Aggrieved, Cembrano filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA on February 20, 2017. Cembrano alleged that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it relied on the Commencement Order to indefinitely suspend the proceedings in Civil Case No. 16-33013.
On June 15, 2017, the CA issued a Resolution 10 dismissing the petition for certiorari, the pertinent portion of which reads:
The Court resolved to DISMISS the Petition due to the following ground and infirmity:
1. [Cembrano] failed to pay the docket and other lawful fees, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. [Cembrano] failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents which are necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the instant Petition, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, such as, but not limited to, the following:
a. [Cembrano]'s Answer to Counterclaim, including annexes, filed with the trial court;
b. Private respondent's Motion for Leave of Court to Set for Hearing Defendants Motion dated August 3, 2016, including annexes filed with the trial court; and
c. Private respondent's Motion dated August 3, 2016, including annexes, filed with the trial court. 11
On July 19, 2017, Cembrano moved for the reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 15, 2017. She filed, together with the motion for reconsideration, the pleadings enumerated in the Resolution dated June 15, 2017 of the CA. A Bank of the Philippine Islands Iloilo Main Branch Manager's Check for the amount of Four Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P4,600.00) dated July 18, 2017 was included by Cembrano, attached to the Motion for Reconsideration to serve as payment of the docket and other lawful fees. 12
In a Resolution 13 dated December 6, 2017, the CA denied Cembrano's motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.14
Hence, Cembrano filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court alleging, among others, that the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari for technical reasons and despite petitioner's subsequent compliance. 15 aScITE
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
Time and time again, the Court has clearly emphasized that there is a huge difference between a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
In a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be put into issue. A petition for review on certiorari brings up for review any error of judgment committed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and over the persons of the parties, or any error committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than an error of judgment. 16
On the other hand, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action, an original petition confined solely to questions of jurisdiction because a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. 17
Here, Cembrano committed a procedural blunder. In this petition for review on certiorari, Cembrano raised the issue of whether or not the CA has gravely abused its discretion. This is a jurisdictional issue and not a question of law. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed instead of this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
In any case, the Court finds that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering the Resolutions dated June 15, 2017 and December 6, 2017.
Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides for the requirements in filing original cases with the CA:
Sec. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. — x x x
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto.
xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
In this case, it is beyond dispute that when Cembrano filed the petition for certiorari, she failed to comply with Section 3 of Rule 46. Cembrano did not attach all necessary pleadings, documents and pay the docket fees and lawful fees. 18 This alone warrants the dismissal of a petition in accordance with the aforementioned rule.
The Court has also consistently ruled in a number of cases that the payment of the full amount of docket fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. It is a condition sine qua non for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over the case. 19 Since the non-payment of the prescribed docket fees by Cembrano did not vest the CA with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, the CA cannot perform any action on the same except to order its dismissal. Hence, the CA did not err when it issued the Resolution dated June 15, 2017 denying the petition for certiorari.
In Cembrano's July 19, 2017 motion for reconsideration, she insisted that the petition for certiorari be allowed because of her subsequent payment of the docket fees and submission of additional documents. She argued that liberal interpretation of the rules is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice.
Indeed, there were instances where the Court has relaxed the strict application of the rule that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. In the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Judge Asuncion, 20 the Court decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the Court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. In Yambao v. CA, 21 the Court further relaxed the rules when it declared that the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for the failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty without fault on the part of the appellant.
Here, Cembrano received a copy of the RTC's Order dated December 29, 2016 denying her motion for reconsideration on January 19, 2017. Cembrano had 60 days or until March 20, 2017 to file a petition for certiorari with the CA or in this case, to pay the docket fees, in accordance with the Rules of Court. She only paid the docket fees on July 19, 2017, which was beyond the reglementary period.
Moreover, Cembrano's circumstance was brought about by her own neglect and fault. Her excuse for initial failure to pay the docket fees was because she was more focused on the substantive aspects of her petition causing her to overlook the procedural requirement. 22 Concomitant to seeking a request for the liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain her failure to abide by the rules. 23 Cembrano in seeking an exemption from the application of the rule had the burden of proving the existence of an exceptionally meritorious reason warranting such departure. Unfortunately, Cembrano's excuse is not a justifiable reason convincing or adequate enough to merit leniency.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA acted in accordance with the law and jurisprudence when it dismissed the petition for certiorari for technical reasons despite Cembrano's subsequent compliance. HEITAD
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolutions dated June 15, 2017 and December 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 10684 UDK are hereby AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-42.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring; id. at 43-44.
3.Id. at 47-49.
4.Id. at 221-223.
5.Id. at 16.
6.Id. at 17.
7.Id. at 16-19.
8.Id. at 71-73.
9.Id. at 74-75.
10.Id. at 43-44.
11.Id. at 43.
12.Id. at 21.
13. Id. at 47-49.
14. Id. at 49.
15. Id. at 22.
16. Heirs of Arturo Garcia II v. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, 764 Phil. 408, 412 (2015).
17. Century Iron Works, Inc., et al. v. Bañas, 711 Phil. 576, 580-581 (2013).
18. Rollo, p. 43.
19. Sanico v. People, et al., 757 Phil. 179, 189 (2015).
20. 252 Phil. 280, 291 (1989).
21. 399 Phil. 712, 719-720 (2000).
22. Rollo, pp. 20-21.
23. GIPA, et al. v. Southern Luzon Institute, 736 Phil. 515, 529 (2014).