GR 129846; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TRADERS ROYAL BANK, respondents.
FACTS
The Republic, through the Bureau of Treasury, filed a collection case against Traders Royal Bank (TRB) after discovering that payees’ endorsements on four treasury warrants, which TRB presented and were cleared for P151,645,000.00 in 1986, were forged. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied TRB’s demurrer to evidence but later, upon reconsideration, dismissed the complaint on January 30, 1995. Petitioner received the dismissal order on February 7, 1995, and timely filed a motion for reconsideration on February 20, 1995. The RTC denied this motion on May 23, 1995, and petitioner received the denial on June 2, 1995, giving it until June 4, 1995, to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner filed its notice of appeal only on June 16, 1995, twelve days late.
The Court of Appeals (CA) initially accepted the records but later dismissed the appeal upon TRB’s motion, finding it filed out of time. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on May 20, 1997, with notice received on June 5, 1997. Petitioner then had until June 20, 1997, to appeal to the Supreme Court via a petition for review under Rule 45. Instead, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on August 4, 1997, contending the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should give due course to the petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
RULING
No. The petition must be dismissed. First, petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. The proper recourse from the CA’s resolution dismissing an appeal is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and lies only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The question of whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal could have been raised via Rule 45. Petitioner filed its Rule 65 petition 45 days after the reglementary period for a Rule 45 petition had lapsed, without justification for the delay. The Court finds no compelling reason to relax the rules and treat this petition as one filed under Rule 45.
Second, even on the merits, the CA correctly dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time. The reglementary period for appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Petitioner’s computation, arguing the period should be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, is erroneous. The period to appeal from the original order of dismissal was interrupted by the motion for reconsideration. Upon denial of that motion, the fresh period to appeal started from receipt of that denial. Petitioner failed to file within that new 15-day period. The dismissal of the complaint by the RTC thus became final and executory. The petition is DISMISSED.