RCBC Savings Bank v. Court of Appeals

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226245. November 7, 2016.]

RCBC SAVINGS BANK, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. LEANDRO C. CATALO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BR. 256 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA CITY, ATTY. PETER JOEY USITA, REHABILITATION RECEIVER, AND WOODRIDGE PROPERTIES, INC., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 November 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 226245 — RCBC Savings Bank vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Hon. Leandro C. Catalo, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Br. 256 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Atty. Peter Joey Usita, Rehabilitation Receiver, and Woodridge Properties, Inc.

After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DISMISS the instant Petition filed by petitioner RCBC Savings Bank for failure of the petition to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any grave abuse of discretion in rendering the challenged Resolutions dated December 16, 2015, 1 February 10, 2016, 2 and June 21, 2016 3 which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence.

Petitioner claims that the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing its petition outright. Petitioner alleges that since it filed its Petition for Certiorari4 within 45 days from the date it received the Regional Trial Court's Order 5 dated October 7, 2015 denying petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration, the same was filed within the 60-day reglementary period under Section 4, 6 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner argues that the CA should not have merely relied on this Court's pronouncement in Laguna Metts Corporation vs. Caalam 7 where We stated that "[w]hile the proper courts previously had discretion to extend the period for filing a petition for certiorari beyond the 60-day period, the amendments to Rule 65 under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC disallows extensions of time to file a petition for certiorari with the deletion of the paragraph that previously permitted such extensions" 8 simply because the instant petition was filed within the 60-day period given in the Rules of Court.

Petitioner's reliance on Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is misplaced. As the instant petition stems from a petition for rehabilitation, the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure (2013) 9 is controlling — particularly Rule 6 10 thereof. It has been a long-standing rule in statutory construction that "a special law prevails over a general law — regardless of their dates of passage — and the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general." 11 Thus, the CA properly denied petitioner's motion for extension of time to file petition for certiorari and dismissed its petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period in rehabilitation cases.

Petitioner's argument that the petition for certiorari filed with the CA should have been considered filed under Section 1, 12 Rule 6 of the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure is specious. Petitioner seems to have conveniently overlooked the fact that it filed a petition for certiorari praying that the CA's resolutions approving the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan and the Supplement to Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan be reversed and set aside. Therefore, it is clear that Section 2, Rule 6 of the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure applies. The said section clearly states: CAIHTE

SECTION 2. Review of Decision or Order on Rehabilitation Plan. — An order approving or disapproving a rehabilitation plan can only be reviewed through a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or order. (underscoring supplied.)

Let it be clear that this pronouncement does not, in any way, mean that instances falling exclusively under Section 1, Rule 6 of the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure allows a petition for certiorari to be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment or order following Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Such is not the issue at hand and this Court does not deem it necessary to tackle that issue in the instant case.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the Resolutions dated December 16, 2015, February 10, 2016, and June 21, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143175.

Furthermore, counsels for petitioner are directed to submit their contact details within five days from receipt hereof pursuant to the En Banc Resolution dated July 10, 2007 in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC.

SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on leave)."

Very truly yours,

 

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 225; issued by the Court of Appeals' First Division composed of Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and Agnes Reyes-Carpio.

2. Id., at pp. 236-237. Id.

3. Id., at pp. 259-260.

4. Id., at pp. 206-220.

5. Id., at p. 198. Attached to the instant petition is a mere photocopy of the said RTC Order.

6. SECTION 4. When and Where to File the Petition. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.

  If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court's appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

  In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

7. 611 Phil. 530 (2009).

8. Id., at p. 535.

9. A.M. No. 12-12-11-SC.

10. Procedural Remedies.

11. Mayor Lopez, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, 273 Phil. 147, 152 (1991).

12. SECTION 1. Motion for Reconsideration. — A party may file a motion for reconsideration of any order issued by the court prior to the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan. No relief can be extended to the party aggrieved by the court's order on the motion through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

  An order issued after the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan can be reviewed only through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.