GR 110504; (October, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110504 October 27, 1994
PROVIDENT INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NORTHERN MINDANAO TRANSPORT CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
Provident Insurance Corporation insured a shipment of fertilizer for Atlas Fertilizer Corporation, which was transported by the vessel MV Ana Alexandria owned by Northern Mindanao Transport Co., Inc. Upon arrival in Iloilo City, the shipment incurred a shortage and spillage. After Atlas was paid by Provident for the loss, Provident, as subrogee, filed a collection suit against Northern before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati. The MeTC dismissed the complaint, applying the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) one-year prescriptive period, finding the suit filed beyond the reglementary period.
Provident appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC’s dismissal. Provident then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review. In its petition, Provident expressly characterized the appeal as raising “a question of law.” The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to procedural defects, including the filing of an appeal on a pure question of law, which is an inappropriate mode for the Court of Appeals under the governing rules.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Provident’s petition for review for having been taken upon a pure question of law, an erroneous mode of appeal.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal based on a strict application of procedural rules governing appeals. Under Circular No. 2-90, an appeal taken to the Court of Appeals that raises only questions of law shall be dismissed, as such issues are not reviewable by said court. The Court examined the issues Provident raised before the Court of Appeals, which pertained to the correctness of applying COGSA’s prescriptive period and the dismissal on the ground of prescription without delving into the merits.
These were determined to be pure questions of law, as their resolution depended on the application of law to undisputed facts and did not require a re-examination of the evidence. The Court emphasized that Provident itself admitted in its petition that it was appealing upon a question of law. A party must be mindful of the nature of the errors assigned and follow the correct appellate procedure. The Court upheld the dismissal for being procedurally infirm, refusing to tolerate continued ignorance or willful disregard of the law on appeals. The substantive merits of the prescription issue were not reached due to this procedural bar.