ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
SOUTHERN
NEGROS DEVELOPMENT BANK, INC.,
G. R. No. 112066 June 27, 1994 -versus-COURT
OF APPEALS and SPOUSES LEONARDO,
QUIASON, J.: This is a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated September 7, 1993 in CA-G. R. CV No. 39966, which denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss and required petitioner to file its brief as appellee. In an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for a Restraining Order filed on March 3, 1994, petitioner sought to enjoin the appellate court from taking further action in the case following petitioner's receipt of that court's Resolution dated February 4, 1994, where the case was deemed submitted for decision and for raffle to the ponente without petitioner's Appellee's Brief.cralaw:red We grant the petition. Private respondents filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Roxas City, a complaint against petitioner for "Annulment and/or Reformation of Contract with Damages." Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that venue was improperly laid, invoking the stipulation in the Dacion En Pago with Lease Purchase Agreement, subject of the complaint. In the agreement, the parties stipulated that any action arising therefrom was to be filed only in the municipal or regional trial court in Bacolod City. Private respondents filed their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.cralaw:red In an Order dated August 20, 1992, the trial court granted petitioner's Motion to Dismiss upholding petitioner's contention as to improper venue and ruling further that petitioner was estopped from questioning the validity of the contract. Private respondents filed an "Omnibus Motion to Admit Complaint for Reconsideration," attaching thereto an Amended Complaint. In the Order dated October 26, 1992, the trial court denied the Omnibus Motion for lack of merit. On November 4, private respondents filed with the trial court a notice of Appeal. Subsequently, private respondents filed in the Court of Appeals their Appellants' Brief.cralaw:red Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss private respondents' appeal. It argued that because private respondents raised purely issues of law in their Appellants' Brief, it was error on their part to appeal to the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal. It also argued that private respondents should have filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. Petitioner insisted that the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction over the appealed case and should consequently dismiss it. Before Us,
petitioner reiterates that the Court
of Appeals is without appellate jurisdiction over the case which
involved
only issues of law. Petitioner is correct that the proper mode of
appeal
from judgments of the Regional Trial Court on pure questions of law is
a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the form
and
manner provided for in Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The issue of whether the trial court erred in holding that the venue of an action was improperly laid is a question of law [See Philippine Banking Corporation v. Hon. Tensuan, G. R. No. 104649, February 28, 1994].cralaw:red The second issue likewise involves a question of law. What is called for in the resolution of such issue is the application or interpretation of a provision of law. Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in not allowing him to amend his complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Section 2, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court.cralaw:red Anent the third issue raised in their Appellants' Brief, private respondents argue that "the trial court clearly violated the cardinal rule on hypothetical admissions in basing its order of dismissal on estoppel and assuming that the agreement was valid and/or freely, knowingly and voluntarily executed by the plaintiffs-appellants" [at p. 8]. Clearly, private respondents were assailing the legal conclusions made by the trial court. A resolution of the issue would not require an examination of the probative value of the evidence of the parties as in fact none were presented.cralaw:red Pursuant to Section 4 of Circular No. 2-90, which provides that "an appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong mode or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed," the only course of action of the Court to which an erroneous appeal is made is to dismiss the same. There is no longer any justification for allowing transfers of erroneous appeals from one court to another [Quesada v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 93869, November 12, 1990, First Division, Minute Resolution].cralaw:red WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The resolution of the Court of Appeals dated September 7, 1993 is set aside and the appeal in CA-G. R. CV No. 39966 is dismissed.cralaw:red SO ORDERED. Cruz, Davide,
Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ.,
concur.
|
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -1994 SC Decisions - Back to Home
|