GR 175116; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175116 ; August 18, 2010
JERRY ONG, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jerry Ong made money market placements with Omnibus Finance Inc. (OFI). Upon maturity, OFI’s checks were dishonored. To secure the obligation, a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over two parcels of land registered in the name of the Rural Bank of Olongapo (RBO) was executed in favor of Ong by OFI’s president and RBO’s chairperson, Cynthia Gonzales, purportedly under a Secretary’s Certificate. After OFI defaulted, Ong foreclosed the mortgage. Subsequently, the Central Bank (later substituted by PDIC) filed a petition for assistance in the liquidation of RBO. Ong filed a claim in the liquidation proceedings as a secured creditor. The RTC initially granted his claim but later reversed itself, declaring the mortgage and foreclosure null and void and denying Ong’s claim.
Ong filed a notice of appeal from the RTC’s denial order. The RTC initially gave due course but later reconsidered, dismissing the appeal for Ong’s failure to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period. Ong filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the RTC’s dismissal of his appeal. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that the proper remedy from the denial of a claim in liquidation proceedings is an ordinary appeal, not certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Ong’s petition for certiorari, which assailed the RTC’s order dismissing his appeal for failure to file a record on appeal on time.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The Court held that the proper remedy from the RTC’s order denying Ong’s claim in the liquidation proceedings was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The RTC’s dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the required record on appeal within the reglementary period was a correct application of procedural rules; it did not constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere errors of judgment are not correctible by certiorari. The CA correctly found that the RTC acted within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the CA, in a certiorari proceeding, cannot review factual findings or evaluate evidence, as its inquiry is limited to jurisdictional errors. Ong’s arguments on the validity of his mortgage involved questions of fact beyond the scope of certiorari.