FIGUEROA v.

PEOPLE (2008)  PCI filed an incorrect mode of appeal in the form of a special civil
Petitioner: CGP TRANSPORTATION AND SERVICES CORPORATION
Respondent: PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INCORPORATED
Ponencia: CHICI-NAZARIO, J.
DOCTRINE: An appeal for certiorari made with questions of fact may be
referred by the SC to the CA for resolution of factual issues.
FACTS:
1. CGP obtained two loans from PCI. Collective sum of which was
around 16,000,000 pesos. The loans were secured by real estate
mortgages over two parcels of land.
2. CGP failed to pay its indebtedness to PCI prompting PCI to foreclose
the real properties subject to the REM. PCI was the highest bidder of
both the subject real properties.
3. CGP failed to redeem the properties. PCI insisted that actual
possession be turned over to it. CGP refused to do so.
4. PCI filed a petition for an ex-parte issuance of a writ of possession at
the RTC of Muntinlupa City.
action for certiorari as there were questions of fact that were
assigned as errors in the issue.
 In an appeal by certiorari under rule 45, only questions of law may be
raised. The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts.
 Section 15 of the ROC provides: Questions that may be raised on
appeal – xxx he may include in his assignment of errors any question
of law or fact that has been raised nthe court below and which is
within the issues framed by the parties.
 Under section 5 (f) of rule 56 of the RoC, an improper appeal –MAY-
be dismissed on the ground of erroneous choice or mode of appeal.
 Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. – The appeal MAY be
dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the
following grounds: xxx (f) error in the choice or mode of appea.
 However, under paragraph 2 section 6 of the same rule, it
states: Section 6. Disposition of improper appeal – xxx An appeal by
certiorari taken to the SC from the RTC submitting issues of fact may
be referred to the CA for decision or appropriate action.

5. RTC rules in favor of PCI. It eventually overturns its decision and
rules in favor of CGP instead claiming that the case involved issues
which required both parties to be present.
6. This prompts to PCI file a petition to the SC for certiorari. The SC
refers the case to the CA as it involved factual issues.
7. The CA rendered a decision finding that the RTC judge had gravely
abused his discretion in suspending the proceedings relating to the
writ of possession asked by PCI. Thus prompting CGP to file a
petition for review on Certiorari under rule 45 of the ROC.
 The SC’s discretion to refer the CA is by reason of the term –
MAY- in both sections.
 It must also be born in mind that procedural rules are intended to
ensure proper administration of law and justice. Rules of procedure
ought not to be applied ina very rigid, technical sense as they are
adopted to help, and not override substantial justice.
DISPOSITION: Petition by CGP denied

ISSUES:
 WON the referral court of appeals gravely erred in giving due course
to the petition for certiorari of PCI there being already a final finding
by the SC and that the said petition by PCI raised questions of facts
not propert for petition for certiorari.

RULING + RATIO:
NO