ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 119393. April 26, 2000]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. vs. CA, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 26 2000.
G.R. No. 119393 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, Robert Peuker and Ma. Luz Trumpeta Esmeralda.)
This petition for review on certiorari assails the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on February 28, 1995, in CA-G.R. CV No. 27846, which dismissed petitioner's appeal from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch CLV in SP No. 10093.
The antecedent facts of this case are as follows:
Private respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila a petition entitled, "In the Matter of the Petition for Correction of entry in the Birth Certificate of the Minor Child Michael Esmeralda Peuker, Robert Peuker and Maria Luz Trumpeta Esmeralda, petitioners"
The trial court set the case for hearing on March 29, 1989. However, the petition was not called on said date because the court personnel staged a mass leave on that day. Thus, private respondent's counsel asked the court officer-in-charge to reset the initial hearing to April 17, 1989. But petitioner's counsel (office of the Solicitor General), pleading non-availability on said date, asked the court officer-in-charge to reset the hearing to May 2, 1989.
On April 17, 1989, despite prior opposition by the OSG to said date of hearing, the trial court heard the case. Private respondents marked and submitted in evidence the following: (a) affidavit of publication of the order setting the case for hearing on March 29, 1989; (b) February 27, 1989 issue of Manila Standard; (c) March 6, 1989 issue of Manila Standard; and (d) March 13, 1989 issue of Manila Standard, containing the order fixing the date of hearing of the petition.
On May 2, 1989, the Court personnel went on mass leave again.
The next day, the OSG filed a manifestation and motion that it had not received a copy of the petition and moved that private respondents be required to furnish the OSG a copy of the petition. On February 16, 1990, the trial court admitted all the exhibits formally offered by private respondents and directed the latter to furnish the OSG a copy of the petition. On April 24, 1990, the OSG received copy of the petition and its annexes.
On May 15, 1990, the trial court granted the petition and ordered the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, to correct the record of birth of Michael Esmeralda Pueker by deleting the entry which states: 'May 1, 1980 - Pres. Roxas, Capiz' under Item No. 12. "DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF PARENTS".
Believing that the trial court's judgment is contrary to law and evidence, the OSG filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner contended that the trial court committed serious error and grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petition for correction of entry for lack of merit and want of jurisdiction. It averred that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition as it is defective in form and substance for failure to implead the local civil registrar, and for lack of publication.
In their brief, private respondents pointed out that petitioner raised only a question of law. Thus, they moved for the dismissal of the appeal based on the alleged wrong choice of mode of appeal by petitioner. In its reply brief, petitioner argued that while its appeal might have raised only a question of law, the assailed decision, being a final judgment of the regional trial court, is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 9 of the Batas Pambansa 129 (entitled The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).
On February 28, 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground of wrong venue. The appellate court ruled that the appeal should have been addressed to the Supreme Court, considering that what was being raised was only a question of law. The Court of Appeals explained that it has indeed exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments of the Regional Trial Courts. However, those do not include matters falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court such as the power to review final judgments of lower courts in all questions in which only an error or question of law is involved. Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition, alleging that the appellate court gravely erred in dismissing its appeal.
Petitioner's contention is bereft of merit.
The issue (whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction as well as whether it gravely abused its discretion in granting the petition for correction of entry) is undoubtedly a question of law. The resolution of said issue does not require an evaluation of proof but on a consideration of the applicable legal provisions and case law. 1 De La Torre vs. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc., 298 SCRA 363, 373 (1998).
We agree with the appellate court's ruling that if an appeal is taken from the regional trial court to the Court of Appeals and appellant raises only a question of law, the appeal should be dismissed. The reason is that issues purely of law are exclusively reviewable by this Court. When an appeal is taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode, it shall be dismissed. 2 Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90; Incorporated now in Sections 5(f) and 6, Rule 56 in conjunction with Section 2, Rule 41, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, if an appeal by notice of appeal is taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals and in the latter court, the appellant raises naught but issues of law, the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 3 Murillo v. Consul, UDK-9748, March 1, 1990; Cai�a v. People, 213 SCRA 309, 313 (1992); Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 186, 193-194 (1996).
In the case at bar, the procedure resorted to by petitioner is incorrect. Petitioner merely filed a notice of appeal which is directed to the Court of Appeals, and raised therein only a question of law. But, to reiterate, the Court of Appeals does not exercise jurisdiction over appeals from the regional trial courts which raise purely a question of law. Appeals of this nature should be elevated to the Supreme Court. Petitioner should have filed directly with this Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. But it chose to file its notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the appellate court did not err in dismissing petitioner's appeal.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
