GR 167631; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167631 December 16, 2005
Jenette Marie B. Crisologo, Petitioner, vs. Globe Telecom Inc. and Cesar M. Maureal, Vice President for Human Resources, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jenette Marie Crisologo, a former employee of respondent Globe Telecom, was separated in 2002. She filed an illegal dismissal case with the NLRC, which was dismissed. While her petition for certiorari assailing this dismissal was pending with the Court of Appeals, Globe filed a replevin case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to recover possession of an executive car issued to her. Crisologo’s motion to dismiss the replevin case on grounds of litis pendentia was denied. She was subsequently declared in default by the RTC, which then rendered a judgment by default ordering her to return the vehicle and pay substantial damages.
Crisologo directly filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court to challenge the default judgment. The Court initially denied this petition, finding it to be the wrong remedy. Crisologo filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing her direct appeal was proper, citing the 1969 case of Matute v. Court of Appeals, which held that a party declared in default could appeal the judgment under the old Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the motion for reconsideration and accept the petition for review, or refer the case to the Court of Appeals, despite the petitioner’s error in her chosen mode of appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and referred the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court clarified that Crisologo’s reliance on the 1969 Matute ruling was misplaced, as it pertained to the old Rules of Court which had been superseded by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the current rules, a judgment by default rendered by an RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is appealable via an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals by notice of appeal under Rule 41, Section 2(a), not by a petition for review on certiorari directly to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
The Court found that the core issues raised by Crisologo, particularly the propriety of the award of damages, necessitated a re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the trial court. This made them questions of fact, over which the Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. While Rule 56, Section 5(f) allows the dismissal of an appeal for an error in the mode of appeal, Section 6 of the same Rule grants the Supreme Court discretion to refer to the Court of Appeals an appeal erroneously taken that involves questions of fact. In the interest of substantial justice, and considering the factual nature of the issues, the Court exercised this discretionary power to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action, thereby reinstating the petition.