GR 146454; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146454 ; September 14, 2007
PAMELA S. SEVILLENO and PURITA S. SEVILLENO, petitioners, vs. PACITA CARILO and CAMELO CARILO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Pamela and Purita Sevilleno filed a complaint for damages against respondents spouses Camelo and Pacita Carilo with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC, acting motu proprio, issued an Order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal outright. It ruled that the appeal was the wrong mode, as the sole issue raised pertained to whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. The appellate court held that this was purely a question of law; hence, the appeal should have been elevated directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for being the wrong mode of appeal.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, applying the settled rules on the modes of appeal. Under the Rules of Court, appeals from judgments or final orders of the RTC exercising its original jurisdiction depend on the nature of the questions raised. If only questions of law are involved, the appeal must be taken directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. An appeal raising only questions of law, if erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals, shall be dismissed outright.
The core issue in the petitioners’ appeal—the RTC’s jurisdiction over the subject matter—is indisputably a pure question of law. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred solely by law or the Constitution, and its determination does not involve an examination of the probative value of evidence but solely the application of law. Since the appeal raised no factual issues, the proper remedy was a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals committed no error in dismissing the petition for being an improper mode of appeal, in strict accordance with Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.