G.R. No. 109053 October 7, 1995
GERSON R. MENESES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHILS., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gerson R. Meneses filed a complaint for damages against his former employer, private respondent Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc., with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 91-57339. He alleged that while employed as an operator for twelve years, an explosion occurred on June 1, 1987, from a fiberglass cover on a soap oil kettle near a switch he was operating, causing him severe third-degree burns, amputation of seven toes, and requiring extensive medical treatment. He claimed the employer was negligent for not acting on his safety recommendation and for replacing a steel cover with a brittle fiberglass one. He prayed for actual, moral, and exemplary damages totaling at least P4,000,000.00, plus attorney’s fees. The private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of laches and lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the suit fell within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The RTC initially deferred resolution but later, upon reconsideration, dismissed the complaint on June 5, 1992, for lack of jurisdiction, citing that claims for damages arising from employer-employee relationship are within NLRC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Instead of filing a notice of appeal, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 29328. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding it had no jurisdiction because the appropriate remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, since the orders were final and the only question raised concerned the jurisdiction of the lower court, which is within the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not certifying CA-G.R. SP No. 29328 to the Supreme Court under Section 3, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not reversing the lower court’s judgment dismissing Civil Case No. 91-57339 for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

1. The Court of Appeals did not err in refusing to certify the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, citing Murillo v. Consul, ruled that there is no longer any justification for allowing transfers of erroneous appeals from one court to the other, as the provisions for a common mode of appeal have been superseded by statutes like Republic Acts Nos. 5433, 5440, 6031, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. At present, except in specific criminal cases, judgments of regional trial courts may be appealed to the Supreme Court only by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, in relation to Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended. Appeals to the Court of Appeals are perfected by ordinary appeal or petition for review, distinct from an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The case of Victorias Milling vs. IAC did not modify this rule, as it was decided under a different procedural context. The trial court’s dismissal order was a final order, and the remedy against it is appeal, not certiorari. If appealing solely on questions of law, a petition for review on certiorari should be filed with the Supreme Court; if on questions of fact and law, an ordinary appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeals. The petitioner incorrectly filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 with the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
2. In view of the resolution of the first issue, it was no longer necessary to discuss the second issue regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court over the complaint for damages. The petition for review was denied for lack of merit.