SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206512. December 1, 2021.]
ALFREDO MALANNAG, SR., SAMUEL TAYA-AN, GONZALO SANGANGAO, AND EDDIE PANNOGAN, petitioners,vs. VICTOR GUMISA, ALBERT B. MAIYAO, SANTOS DAGUIO, AND ALDRIN E. BAKIDAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206512 (Alfredo Malannag, Sr., Samuel Taya-an, Gonzalo Sangangao, and Eddie Pannogan v. Victor Gumisa, Albert B. Maiyao, Santos Daguio, and Aldrin E. Bakidan). — This Petition for Review 1 assails the July 30, 2012 Decision 2 and March 15, 2013 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117483. The July 30, 2012 Decision dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition 4 filed by petitioners Alfredo Malannag, Sr., Samuel Taya-an, Gonzalo Sangangao, and Eddie Pannogan for being the wrong remedy to a decision of the trial court. 5 The March 15, 2013 Resolution 6 denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. 7
Antecedents:
The parties in this case both claim to be the lawful officers of the Balatoc (Kalinga,) Tribe, Inc. (BKTI). 8 Petitioners make up the Malannag faction, while respondents Victor Gumisa, Albert B. Maiyao, Santos Daguio, and Aldrin E. Bakidan compose the Gumisa faction. Their conflict led respondents to file a Quo Warranto Complaint 9 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabuk, Kalinga in 2009. In their Complaint, respondents alleged that they are the lawful officers of BKTI and thus prayed to be declared as such by the trial court. 10
In their Answer, 11 petitioners drew attention to a pending injunction case which they filed in 2008 before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), to prohibit respondents from proceeding with the latter's scheduled election. 12 Petitioners pointed out that this was evidence of forum shopping. 13 Thus, they prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint. 14 They also added that they are the lawful officers of BKTI. 15
Trial ensued with the trial court confronted with two issues: (1) whether respondents committed forum shopping; and (2) who between the parties are the lawful officers of BKTI. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial
The trial court first recognized the case as an intra-corporate dispute based on the allegations in the Complaint. 17 It then granted petitioners' prayer for dismissal by reason of forum shopping after finding all the elements thereof to be present. 18 However, aside from dismissing the case, the RTC also declared respondents as the lawful officers of BKTI. 19
The fallo of the trial court's Decision reads:
Viewed from the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered, to wit:
1. Dismissing the instant complaint [for] being violative of the Rule on Forum Shopping;
2. Ousting and altogether excluding therefrom the defendants as the corporate officers of BKTI;
3. Declaring the [respondents] as the lawful President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer, respectively of BKTI; and
4. No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED. 20
Unsatisfied with the ruling on forum shopping, respondents appealed 21 such disposition of the trial court before the appellate court, which was raffled to the CA Special Third Division. 22 Said division granted the partial appeal after it determined that respondents did not commit forum shopping as the NCIP case was filed by petitioners, and not by them, and in any case, the NCIP had no jurisdiction over the intra-corporate dispute. 23
Accordingly, it modified the RTC Decision in that the disquisition dismissing the case on the ground of forum shopping was set aside. 24 While petitioners moved for reconsideration, the CA Special Third Division maintained its ruling that there was no forum shopping. 25 This ruling attained finality after petitioners failed to appeal. 26
Meanwhile, petitioners assailed the RTC Decision via a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition 27 before the CA (raffled to the Special Fifth Division), 28 assailing items 2 and 3 thereof. 29 They argued that since the Complaint for Quo Warranto has already been dismissed in item 1, it was grave abuse of discretion for the RTC to still rule on the merits and declare respondents as the lawful officers of BKTI. 30 The ruling of the Special Fifth Division is the subject of this Petition.
Ruling of the CA Special Fifth
The appellate court dismissed petitioners' Rule 65 petition for being a wrong remedy. 31 It held that since petitioners sought to nullify the RTC Decision, they should have appealed the same within the 15-day reglementary period instead of letting the period lapse and opting to file a Rule 65 petition instead. 32 It emphasized that a Rule 65 petition cannot substitute for a lost appeal. 33
The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.34
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the appellate court in the assailed Resolution. 35
Arguments of the Petitioners:
In their Petition, 36 petitioners advance a new theory: the RTC Decision, together with all other decisions, resolutions, and orders arising therefrom, is void ab initio and has no force and effect, as it was rendered by a regular court (as opposed to a special commercial court) which has no jurisdiction to hear and decide an intra-corporate dispute. 37 Even assuming that the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, the case should still be dismissed for violation of the rule on forum shopping. 38
Petitioners add that certiorari, not appeal, is the proper remedy to the trial court's decision since the latter committed an error of jurisdiction. 39
Arguments of the Respondents:
In their Comment, 40 respondents argue that the RTC was not prohibited from trying the case since there was no designated special commercial court in the province of Kalinga (where BKTI's principal office was located), 41 and in any case, jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies have been transferred to courts of general jurisdiction (such as the RTC of Tabuk, Kalinga) as provided in Republic Act No. (RA) 8799 or the "Securities Regulation Code." 42
Respondents add that it would be impractical and contrary to the policy of speedy determination of intra-corporate controversies to try the case in any of the provinces of Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, or Quirino where special commercial courts are located. 43 In any event, it was too late for petitioners to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction. 44
Respondents also maintain that they are not guilty of forum shopping, 45 and that appeal, not certiorari, is the proper remedy to assail the RTC Decision. 46
Issue
Did the appellate court err in dismissing petitioners' Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition?
Our Ruling
We deny the Petition.
At the outset, it should be noted that the scope of the Court's review under Rule 45 is limited to the errors committed by the appellate court and not those committed directly by the trial court. 47 Here, petitioners are in essence assailing the RTC Decision for being rendered by a court with no jurisdiction. 48 While this is normally beyond the scope of our review, we will address it below, considering that lack of jurisdiction is a defense that may be raised even after a final judgment. 49
The proper remedy to assail thecertiorari or prohibition.
It is basic that the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 are remedies that are available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 50 When appeal is available, the action will not prosper even if the ascribed error is lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. 51 As applied, because petitioners failed to file an appeal, the appellate court did not err in dismissing their Rule 65 petition.
The ruling on forum shopping
Petitioners insist that even if the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, the case should still be dismissed for violation of the rule on forum shopping. 52 However, the CA Special Third Division has already held that there was no forum shopping and has accordingly modified the RTC Decision. 53 This ruling was maintained even after petitioners moved for reconsideration. 54 Petitioners no longer appealed the said ruling; 55 thus, it has attained finality and can no longer be modified. 56
RTCs, in general, have
For the first time since the complaint was filed, petitioners argue that the RTC of Tabuk, Kalinga has no jurisdiction to try the case since it was not a special commercial court. Petitioners raise this argument years after they have actively participated in the trial, after they have sought affirmative relief (in the form of dismissal of the complaint), and after they have in fact obtained such relief.
Petitioners, however, are wrong. The pertinent provision is Section 5.2 of RA 8799:
SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. x x x
In Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc., 57 the Court clarified that the above provision of RA 8799 transferred the jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases to RTCs in general58 as opposed to RTCs specifically designated by the Supreme Court. Distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction, 59 the Court explained that while RA 8799 allowed the Court to designate the RTC branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases, such designation has nothing to do with the statutory conferment of subject matter jurisdiction to all RTCs under RA 8799. 60 This is because the Court cannot enlarge, diminish, or dictate when jurisdiction will be removed given that the power to define, prescribe, and apportion jurisdiction is generally a matter of legislative prerogative. 61
Accordingly, petitioners are incorrect that the RTC of Tabuk, Kalinga lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. While the proper procedure would have been to refer the case to the nearest special commercial court, 62 this error is merely procedural in nature and does not amount to lack of jurisdiction that would nullify the RTC Decision as prayed for by petitioners.
In fine, this Court finds no error committed by the appellate court in its assailed Decision and Resolution. Thus, dismissal is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The July 30, 2012 Decision and March 15, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117843 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
The Court NOTES:
a) The letter dated November 10, 2020 of Marissa A. De Vera, Records Officer 1, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, stating that the rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. 117483 was already forwarded to the Judicial Records Office of this Court on January 17, 2020.
b) The returned and unserved copies of the Resolutions dated (a) June 17, 2020 (which noted the letter of Mr. John Patrick D. Gatpatan, Records Officer I, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, transmitting the original records of CA-G.R. SP No. 117483), and (b) October 12, 2020 (which directed the Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Tabuk, Kalinga Province to elevate the complete records of SP/Civil Action Case No. 82) separately sent to Carag Somera Jamora & Villareal, counsel for respondents, at 2nd Floor, The Plaza Royale, 102 L.P. Leviste St., Salcedo Village, Makati City both with notation, "Return to Sender, Moved Out."
SO ORDERED."(Dimaampao, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Lopez, M.V., J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 15, 2021.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 18-43.
2.Id. at 45-56. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Elihu A. Ybañez.
3.Id. at 58-59.
4. CA rollo, pp. 3-32.
5.Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 53-55.
6.Id. at 59.
7.Id. at 60-67.
8.Id. at 218, 271.
9.Id. at 215-219, 24.
10.Id. at 218.
11.Id. at 270-275.
12.Id. at 273.
13.Id. at 273-374.
14.Id. at 274.
15.Id. at 271.
16.Id. at 191.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 196-197, 208.
19.Id. at 208.
20.Id. at 208.
21.Id. at 107-110.
22.Id. at 112.
23.Id. at 117-119, 124.
24.Id. at 124.
25.Id. at 138-139, 141. It also affirmed items 2 and 3 of the RTC Decision, without prejudice to the outcome of petitioners' special civil action for certiorari and prohibition pending before the Special Fifth Division.
26. See id. at 588.
27. CA rollo, pp. 3-32.
28.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 45.
29.Id. at 158-159.
30.Id. at 162-164.
31.Id. at 53-55.
32.Id. at 55.
33.Id.
34.Id.
35.Id. at 58-59.
36.Id. at 18-39.
37.Id. at 29-34.
38.Id. at 35-36.
39.Id. at 34-35.
40.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 579-592.
41.Id. at 583.
42.Id. at 582.
43.Id. at 583.
44.Id. at 584.
45.Id. at 588-590.
46.Id. at 586-587.
47.Vda. de Dayao v. Heirs of Robles, 612 Phil. 137, 144 (2009), citing Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 609 (2003).
48.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 29.
49.Magno v. People, 662 Phil. 726, 736 (2011), citing Machado v. Gatdula, 626 Phil. 457, 469 (2010).
50. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sections 1 and 2.
51.Chua v. People, 821 Phil. 271, 278-279 (2017), citing Cuevas v. Macatangay, 806 Phil. 325, 336 (2017).
52.Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 35.
53.Id. at 117-118, 124. While petitioners claim that the CA ruling on item 1 (forum shopping) is without prejudice to the outcome of this case (rollo, Vol. 1, p. 27), a plain reading of the said CA Decision shows that the "without prejudice" qualification refers only to items 2 and 3 of the RTC Decision (rollo, p. 141).
54.Id. at 141.
55. See rollo, Vol. II, p. 588.
56.FGU Insurance Corp. v. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, 659 Phil. 117, 123 (2011).
57. 772 Phil. 483 (2015).
58.Id. at 507-508.
59.Id. at 483, 505, citing Herrera, Oscar M., Remedial Law, Vol. 1. 2007 Ed., p. 73.
60.Id. at 433, 510.
61.Id., citing Tinitigan v. Tinitigan, Sr., 188 Phil. 597, 611 (1980), We are not unmindful of the ruling in Calleja v. Panday, 518 Phil. 801-814 (2006). However, as noted in Gonzales (supra note 51, at 514), "the fine line that distinguishes subject matter jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction had been clearly blurred in Calleja." Applying the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and the exercise thereof, the Court finds the ruling here to be more in accord with the law.
62.Id. at 513, citing Item No. 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, as amended (June 16, 2015).