GR L 18728; (May, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18728. May 31, 1963. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a collection suit against Raymundo Vargas in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Vargas moved to dismiss on the ground of prescription, which the trial court granted. PNB filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal within the reglementary period but failed to file the appeal bond on time. Consequently, the trial court denied PNB’s right to appeal. PNB then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the trial court’s orders and compel the approval of its appeal.
The Court of Appeals dismissed PNB’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found that in PNB’s notice of appeal and record on appeal filed in the trial court, it had unequivocally manifested its intention to appeal the main case directly to the Supreme Court on purely questions of law. Since the special civil action of mandamus was sought in aid of appellate jurisdiction, and the main case was not intended to be appealed to the Court of Appeals, that court ruled it had no authority to act on the petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic hinges on the statutory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over special civil actions. Under Section 30 of Republic Act No. 296 (the Judiciary Act), the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, but only when such writ is invoked “merely in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” This means the court can only entertain such a petition if the main case, to which the writ is ancillary, is properly appealable to or pending before the Court of Appeals.
In this case, PNB’s own pleadings in the trial court—the notice of appeal and record on appeal—expressly stated its intention to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the main collection case would not fall under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the petition for mandamus, which sought to compel the trial court to give due course to that very appeal, could not be considered as filed “in aid of” the Court of Appeals’ appellate jurisdiction. The Court also rejected PNB’s alternative argument that the Court of Appeals should have transferred the case to the Supreme Court. The provision for transfer under Section 31 of the Judiciary Act applies only to erroneously appealed cases, not to special civil actions originally filed in the wrong appellate court. The petition was thus properly denied.