GR 172880; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172880 ; August 11, 2010
China Banking Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation (CEPRI) filed a Petition for Rehabilitation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting as a commercial court, issued a Stay Order. After publication and hearing, the RTC issued an Order dated April 30, 2002, denying due course to the rehabilitation petition and lifting the Stay Order. CEPRI received this Order on May 8, 2002, and filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on May 14, 2002. The RTC, in an Order dated May 23, 2002, refused to take cognizance of the motion, declaring it a prohibited pleading under the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation.
CEPRI subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 4, 2002, which was beyond the period to appeal the RTC’s April 30 Order via a petition for review. The CA initially denied the petition but, upon reconsideration, issued an Amended Decision granting it. The CA treated the Rule 65 petition as a petition for review, reinstated the rehabilitation proceedings, and remanded the case to the RTC. Petitioner China Banking Corporation (Chinabank) assails this Amended Decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating CEPRI’s Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) as a Petition for Review to reinstate the lapsed appeal from the RTC’s Order denying the rehabilitation petition.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted Chinabank’s petition and reversed the CA’s Amended Decision. The Court held that the CA committed reversible error in treating the Rule 65 petition as a petition for review. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss results from a party’s own negligence in observing the proper remedy and reglementary period.
The RTC’s Order denying due course to the rehabilitation petition was a final order. The proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which CEPRI failed to file within the prescribed period. The subsequent filing of a Rule 65 petition could not revive this lapsed right to appeal. The Court emphasized that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the petition and the relief sought. CEPRI’s petition essentially sought a review of the RTC’s factual and legal conclusions, which is the function of an appeal, not certiorari. Since no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC was established, the CA had no basis to grant the Rule 65 petition. Consequently, the RTC’s Orders dated April 30, 2002, and May 23, 2002, stand affirmed.