G.R. No. 95533; November 20, 2000
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine Commercial and International Bank (Santa Ana Branch Davao City), respondents.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for escheat under Act No. 3936 (the Unclaimed Balances Law) against several banks in Davao City. The complaint sought to have unclaimed deposits, held for persons known to be dead or inactive for ten years or more, declared escheated in favor of the state. The trial court initially found the complaint insufficient for failing to allege the banks’ compliance with certain statutory conditions, such as posting a sworn statement and notifying the depositors. The Republic was allowed to amend its complaint to cure this defect.
After the amendment, the trial court ordered the Republic to publish a notice containing the summons and the entire list of unclaimed balances in a newspaper, at an estimated cost of P50,000. The Republic objected, arguing that the law only required publication of the summons and a general notice, not the detailed list. The trial court insisted on the publication of the list and ultimately dismissed the case without prejudice when the Republic refused to shoulder the cost. The Republic then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Republic’s petition for certiorari, ruling that the proper remedy against the trial court’s order of dismissal was an ordinary appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Republic’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal issue was the propriety of the remedy chosen. The Court held that the trial court’s order dismissing the case, even if without prejudice, was a final order because it terminated the proceedings. Consequently, the Republic’s remedy was an ordinary appeal within the reglementary period. The special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It is only available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and to correct acts rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Since an appeal was available and was not timely taken, the order of dismissal became final and executory. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s interlocutory orders regarding publication, as these were within its authority to ensure proper notice in the escheat proceedings. The dismissal of the certiorari petition by the Court of Appeals was therefore legally sound.