G.R. No. 191202, November 21, 2018
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, Petitioner, vs. F. Franco Transport, Inc., represented by its President, Ma. Liza Franco-Cruz, Respondent.

FACTS

RCBC foreclosed on a real estate mortgage executed by F. Franco Transport, Inc. (FFTI) after the latter defaulted on its loans. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted RCBC’s petition for a writ of possession. FFTI filed various motions to delay implementation, including a motion to recall an alias writ of possession. The RTC denied these motions in an Order dated February 26, 2007. FFTI filed a Notice of Appeal from this February 26, 2007 Order.
The RTC, however, denied due course to the notice of appeal. It ruled that the appeal was improper because the final order that disposed of the case was its August 7, 2001 Order granting the writ of possession, not the February 26, 2007 Order which was merely incidental to execution. FFTI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC and directed it to give due course to the appeal. RCBC elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC correctly denied due course to FFTI’s notice of appeal from the February 26, 2007 Order.

RULING

No. The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling. The legal logic is grounded in the limited authority of a trial court to dismiss an appeal. Under Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, a trial court may only dismiss an appeal motu proprio or on motion on two exclusive grounds: (1) that the appeal was taken out of time, or (2) that the required docket and other lawful fees were not paid in full. The RTC denied the appeal on a substantive ground—that the order appealed from was not the proper subject of an appeal. This determination on the propriety or merit of the appeal is a function reserved to the appellate court.
The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by making a substantive evaluation of the appeal’s validity. Its ministerial duty was merely to ascertain the timeliness of the appeal and the payment of fees. Once these are satisfied, it must give due course to the appeal and transmit the records to the appellate court. The question of whether the February 26, 2007 Order (which denied the motion to recall the alias writ) is appealable or merely interlocutory is a matter for the CA to decide. Therefore, the RTC’s denial of the notice of appeal on a ground not permitted by the rules constituted grave abuse of discretion.