G.R. No. 84628 November 16, 1989
HEIRS OF ILDEFONSO COSCOLLUELA, SR., INC., petitioner, vs. RICO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, COURT OF APPEALS (11th Division), and HON. ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, Judge, Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental Branch, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Heirs of Ildefonso Coscoluella, Inc., a domestic corporation, owned an Isuzu pick-up truck insured with private respondent Rico General Insurance Corporation under a commercial vehicle policy. On August 28, 1987, within the policy period, the vehicle was severely damaged and rendered unserviceable when fired upon by unidentified armed persons in Murcia, Negros Occidental, resulting in four deaths. Petitioner filed a claim for P80,000.00 for repairs, which the insurer denied. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action, invoking an exclusion clause in the insurance policy. The clause exempted the insurer from liability for loss directly or indirectly arising from “civil commotion, mutiny, rebellion, insurrection, military or usurped power.” Respondent alleged the firing was an indirect consequence of rebellion or civil commotion. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss, ruling the damage arose from a civil commotion, and stated courts could take cognizance of such civil disturbance without an executive proclamation. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, but the RTC, in a subsequent order, erroneously stated the proper remedy was a petition for review by certiorari and would not transmit the records. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action; and (2) Whether it erred in denying the petition for certiorari on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action. A cause of action exists if the pleading alleges facts which, if true, would establish the plaintiff’s right to the relief demanded. Petitioner’s complaint alleged the vehicle was insured, it was damaged during the policy period by armed persons, and the insurer refused the claim. These allegations, assumed to be true in a motion to dismiss, constituted a valid cause of action. The applicability of the exclusion clause regarding “civil commotion” or “rebellion” is a matter of defense requiring a full trial on the merits for proper determination, not a ground for dismissal. The trial court prematurely resolved this factual question.
On the second issue, the Court ruled the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy. After the RTC dismissed the complaint, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which was the correct ordinary remedy. However, the RTC judge erroneously refused to transmit the records, thereby effectively denying the appeal. When an appeal is denied, certiorari becomes available as there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in dismissing the certiorari petition on procedural grounds. The case was remanded to the RTC for trial on the merits.