GR 112066; (June, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112066 June 27, 1994
SOUTHERN NEGROS DEVELOPMENT BANK, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES LEONARDO and MERCEDES YAP, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, spouses Leonardo and Mercedes Yap, filed a complaint for “Annulment and/or Reformation of Contract with Damages” against petitioner Southern Negros Development Bank, Inc. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Roxas City. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue, citing a stipulation in the Dacion En Pago with Lease-Purchase Agreement that any action arising from it must be filed in Bacolod City. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss in an Order dated August 20, 1992. Private respondents filed an “Omnibus Motion to Admit Complaint, for Reconsideration,” attaching an Amended Complaint, which the RTC denied in an Order dated October 26, 1992. On November 4, private respondents filed a notice of appeal with the RTC and subsequently filed their Appellants’ Brief with the Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals, arguing that since private respondents raised only issues of law in their brief, the proper mode of appeal was a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, and thus the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss in a Resolution dated September 7, 1993, and required petitioner to file its brief. Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction over the case, which involved only pure questions of law, given that the proper mode of appeal from an RTC judgment on pure questions of law is a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court ruled that the proper mode of appeal from judgments of the Regional Trial Court on pure questions of law is a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, as mandated by Section 5(2)(e) of the 1987 Constitution , Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (as amended), and Section 25 of the Interim Rules implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The issues raised by private respondents in their Appellants’ Brief—(1) whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for improper venue; (2) whether the trial court erred in not admitting the Amended Complaint; and (3) whether the trial court disregarded the rule on hypothetical admissions in a motion to dismiss—were all pure questions of law, requiring only the application or interpretation of law, not an examination of evidence. Pursuant to Circular No. 2-90, which states that an appeal taken by the wrong mode shall be dismissed, the Supreme Court set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated September 7, 1993 and dismissed the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 39966.