GR 82789; (November, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82789 November 21, 1991
NARCISO KHO, petitioner, vs. MANUEL CAMACHO, SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, and HONORABLE OSCAR LEVISTE, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Narciso Kho issued six postdated checks to respondent Atty. Manuel Camacho as payment for attorney’s fees. One check was lost by Camacho, and the remaining five were dishonored upon presentment because the drawee bank, Manila Bank, had been ordered closed by the Central Bank. Camacho filed a collection case. Kho, in his answer, argued he had no obligation to replace the lost check and could not pay the others due to the bank closure, as his funds were trapped therein.
Respondent Judge Oscar Leviste granted Camacho’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ordering Kho to pay the amount minus the lost check. Kho filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the trial court initially approved. However, upon Camacho’s motion, Judge Leviste issued an assailed order cancelling the approval of the notice of appeal. He ruled that only questions of law were involved, making a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court the proper remedy, not an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling the approved notice of appeal on the ground that the case involved only questions of law.
RULING
Yes, the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that a trial court has no authority to disallow an appeal based on its determination that only questions of law are involved. This prerogative belongs to the appellate court. Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, a trial court cannot disapprove an appeal on that ground. The proper course of action for Judge Leviste was to sustain his approval of the notice of appeal. If the appeal was indeed erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals, that court—not the trial court—has the duty under Rule 50 to certify the case to the proper tribunal. A notice of appeal does not require trial court approval; its role is limited to approving the record on appeal and the appeal bond.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court resolved to terminate the case. Examining the merits, it found the judgment on the pleadings was proper. Kho’s answer admitted the obligation but advanced an invalid defense—inability to pay due to the bank’s closure—which did not tender a genuine issue. Thus, while the procedural error was corrected, the substantive judgment was affirmed. The petition for certiorari was denied.