GR 95133; (August, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95133 ; August 21, 1991
Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, Pacifico P. De Dios and Leonora Dominguez, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale. The Regional Trial Court initially declared the mortgage and foreclosure sale valid only as to the one-half share of Pacifico de Dios and void as to the share of Leonora Dominguez. Upon motions for reconsideration, the trial court modified its decision, declaring the entire mortgage and foreclosure sale null and void ab initio and ordering petitioner to reconvey the land or pay its value.
Petitioner, believing the trial court committed pure questions of law, filed a petition for review on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Interim Rules. The Supreme Court’s Third Division referred the petition to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the proper remedy from the RTC decision was an ordinary appeal via notice of appeal, not a petition for review on certiorari, as the trial court had jurisdiction and certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on certiorari on procedural grounds instead of deciding the case on its merits.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court clarified that the petition filed by Atlas was not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 but a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a mode of appeal. Section 25 of the Interim Rules allowed appeals from judgments of Regional Trial Courts rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction to be taken to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, provided only questions of law are raised.
Since Atlas raised only questions of law in its petition, its filing directly with the Supreme Court was procedurally correct under the then-prevailing rules. The Supreme Court’s referral of the case to the Court of Appeals was an exercise of its prerogative to delegate the review, not a finding that the petition was improperly filed. Consequently, the Court of Appeals had the duty to decide the referred case on its merits. Its dismissal based on the perceived incorrect mode of appeal constituted a refusal to perform a mandated duty. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to decide the substantive issues.