THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213410. November 11, 2015.]
FIRST AQUA SUGAR TRADERS, INC. AND CBN INTERNATIONAL (HK) CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213410 (First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. and CBN International (HK) Corporation vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands). — Submitted for the Court's review is the Decision 1 dated November 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94119 affirming the Judgment 2 dated October 16, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 57 in Civil Case No. 99-930, which disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. Dismissing the complaint against defendant Bank of the Philippine Islands in its entirety[;]
2. Ordering plaintiff CBN International HK Corporation to pay defendant Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) its loan obligation to BPI [sic] in the amount of P12,578,840.28 with legal interest of 12% from the date of this judgment until the time this judgment becomes final and executory, plus 25% of such judgment amount as stipulated attorney's fees, within ninety (90) days from the time this judgment becomes final and executory, and in default thereof the property covered by TCT No. 151255 registered in the name of the plaintiff First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. shall be sold at public auction to satisfy the foregoing monetary judgment[;]
3. Even if the judgment amount specified in the preceding paragraph is paid either voluntarily or by foreclosure in accordance with this judgment, the defendant Bank of the Philippine Islands is nevertheless entitled to retain and keep possession of TCT No. 151255 covering the subject property because the same property/title also secures the still outstanding obligation of the 170 million yen obligation of CBN Shimizu Corporation to the bank[;] cHaCAS
4. Ordering the plaintiffs jointly and severally [liable] to pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. 3
First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. and CBN International (HK) Corporation (petitioners) moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied in the CA Resolution 4 dated July 10, 2014. Hence, this petition alternatively denominated as one for appeal under Rule 45 and as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. 5
Pending the resolution of the present review, the petitioners filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition6 alleging that they have fully satisfied the claim of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (respondent) as granted in the RTC Judgment dated October 16, 2000 and pursuant to a Compromise Agreement7 dated March 16, 2015. The respondent thereafter confirmed the satisfaction of its claims by the petitioners and expressed no objection to the motion. 8
Under Rule 50, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right before the filing of the appellee's brief or in the present case, the respondent's comment. Records show that the motion was filed on March 20, 2015 even before the filing of the respondent's Comment 9 to the petition on April 6, 2015. In view thereof and the respondent's acknowledgment of the full satisfaction of its claims, no justifiable reasons exist for the Court not to act favorably on the motion.
The petitioners must be reminded, however, that they cannot seek succor before the Court by filing a pleading alternatively denominated as an appeal and as an original action for certiorari.
The remedies of appeal under Rule 45 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. 10 The purpose of an appeal is to seek the correction of errors in judgment while a certiorari rectifies errors of jurisdiction. The Court has explained this distinction in Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, 11 thus:
Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. . . .:
"When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil action of certiorari."
The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court — on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact — a mistake of judgment — appeal is the remedy. 12 (Citations omitted)
The aforesaid distinctions are one of the reasons why a certiorari and an appeal are not alternative remedies such that a party cannot avail of the former in lieu of the latter. By the same token, the said remedies cannot also be concurrently pursued through the same pleading and be alternatively invoked in ascribing errors to a court judgment, as in the instant case.
The issue for which the petitioners seek to employ the extraordinary writ of certiorari is actually an error in judgment and not jurisdiction. The question on whether the petitioners were deprived of due process by the CA's affirmation of the RTC judgment without trial on the merits did not involve a question of jurisdiction. Rather, it was a claim of erroneous exercise of judgment as it essentially concerned a review of the RTC's assessment of factual consideration in the case — a matter which can be adequately remedied by an appeal.
The rule is that as long as the lower courts act within their jurisdiction, alleged errors committed in the exercise of their discretion will amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a petition for review. 13
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Withdraw Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94119 is hereby deemed FINAL AND EXECUTORY." DACcIH
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring; rollo, pp. 61-74.
2. Issued by Judge Reinato G. Quilala; id. at 52-59.
3. Id. at 59.
4. Id. at 76.
5. Id. at 3-22.
6. Id. at 88-89.
7. Id. at 160-161.
8. Id. at 165-166.
9. Id. at 90-119.
10. Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corp., 479 Phil. 768, 782 (2004).
11. 479 Phil. 768 (2004).
12. Id. at 779-780.
13. Pilipino Telephone Corp. v. Radiomarine Network, Inc., 641 Phil. 15, 44 (2010), citing Apostol v. CA, et al., 590 Phil. 88, 101 (2008).