G.R. No. 167631 December 16, 2005
Jenette Marie B. Crisologo, Petitioner, vs. Globe Telecom Inc. and Cesar M. Maureal, Vice President for Human Resources, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jenette Marie Crisologo, a former employee of respondent Globe Telecom, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. While her petition challenging the NLRC’s dismissal was pending with the Court of Appeals, Globe filed a separate civil action for recovery of possession and replevin of a company car issued to her. Crisologo moved to dismiss the civil case on grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping, but the RTC denied her motion and later declared her in default. The RTC then rendered a judgment by default ordering her to return the vehicle and pay substantial damages.
Crisologo directly filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court to assail the default judgment. The Court initially denied this petition, finding it to be the wrong remedy. In her motion for reconsideration, Crisologo cited the 1969 case of Matute v. Court of Appeals, arguing it allowed a defaulted defendant to appeal directly to the Supreme Court by certiorari. She mistakenly applied an old rule cited in Matute to the current 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the motion for reconsideration and accept the petition for review, notwithstanding the petitioner’s error in her chosen mode of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstated the petition, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court clarified that the Matute case, decided under the old Rules of Court, was no longer controlling. Under the prevailing 1997 Rules, a judgment by default rendered by an RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is appealable via an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals by notice of appeal under Rule 41, Section 2(a), not by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.
The Court found that Crisologo’s appeal raised questions of fact, particularly concerning the RTC’s award of damages, which required a re-evaluation of evidence. Such questions fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. While Rule 56, Section 5(f) allows the dismissal of an appeal for an error in the mode of appeal, Section 6 of the same Rule grants the Court discretion to refer an erroneously filed appeal involving questions of fact to the Court of Appeals. In the interest of substantial justice, and considering the factual issues involved, the Court exercised its discretion to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action instead of dismissing it on a technicality.