Você está na página 1de 4

APPEALATE JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS TO ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNALS
Spouses Chugani, et al., v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation
G.R No. 230037, March 19, 2018
Tijam, J.:
DOCTRINE:

Consistent with Section 4, Rule 65, the CA has the jurisdiction to rule on the alleged
grave abuse of discretion of the PDIC. Therefore, the CA is correct when it held that
the RTC has no jurisdiction over the Petitions for Certiorari filed by the petitioners
questioning the PDIC's denial of their claim for deposit insurance.
FACTS:
Petitioners opened Time Deposit Accounts with RBMI through inter-branch deposits to
the accounts of RBMI. Sometime in September 2011, petitioners came to know that
the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas placed RBMI under
receivership and thereafter closed the latter. Petitioners, then filed claims for
insurance of their time deposits. Respondent Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation (PDIC) denied the claims. Petitioners filed a request for reconsideration of
PDIC's denial of their claim. PDIC however rejected the same in its Letter.
Hence, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed the RTC's Decision to the CA. CA denied the
appeal.

Hence, this petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of CA in affirming
the decision of the RTC dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA is correct in ruling that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the Petitions
for Certiorari filed by the petitioners
HELD:
No.
The power of the PDIC as to whether it will deny or grant the claim for deposit
insurance based on its rules and regulations partakes of a quasi-judicial function.
Consistent with Section 4,Rule 65, the CA has the jurisdiction to rule on the alleged
grave abuse of discretion of the PDIC. Therefore, the CA is correct when it held that
the RTC has no jurisdiction over the Petitions for Certiorari filed by the petitioners
questioning the PDIC's denial of their claim for deposit insurance.
As it now stands, the remedy to question the decisions of the PDIC is through a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and filed before the CA.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65, LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE
RULES
National Power Corporation v. CA
G.R No. 206167, March 19, 2018
Tijam, J.:
DOCTRINE
FACTS:

The case stemmed from civil case filed by Spouses Javellana o fix lease rental and just
compensation; collection of sum of money and damages against NPC and National
Transmission Corporation (Transco). Transco negotiated with Spouses Javellana for
the extra-judicial settlement of the case. Subsequently, Spouses Javellana received the
amount of P80,380,822.00 from Transco.

Thereafter, Atty. Rex C. Muzones (Atty. Muzones), the counsel of the Spouses
Javellana filed a Notice of Attorney's lien. Transco then filed a Motion to Dismiss the
case in view of the extra-judicial settlement of the case. On his part, Atty. Muzones
filed a Motion for Partial Satisfaction of Judgment and Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss.
Respondent judge issued an Order ordering NPC and Transco to pay Atty. Muzones
the amount of P52,469,660.00 as his attorney's lien and later clarified that it is
separate and distinct from the amount to be paid to the Spouses Javellana.
Transco filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the orders, while NPC filed its comment
to the Clarificatory Order. Respondent judge denied the Motion and the comment. NPC
then filed a motion for reconsideration. Respondent judge denied the same.
Aggrieved, NPC filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. CA dismissed NPC's petition
for being filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period.
Thus, NPC comes before Us assailing the CA's dismissal of its petition.
ISSUES:

1. Whether a petition for certiorari is the right remedy.


2. Whether the petition is filed beyond the reglementary period.
3. Whether the NPC is liable to pay the amount of attorney’s fee.
HELD:
1. No.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that
may be resorted to only in the absence of appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law."24 In the instant case, NPC has a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy to appeal the CA decision, which is to file a Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Section 1 of Rule 45 states that "A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a
judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."

Here, the Decision of the CA dismissed the NPC's petition for being filed out of time,
thus it was a final judgment rendered by the CA. There is nothing left to be done by
the CA in respect to the said case. Thus, NPC should have filed an appeal by petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before this Court, not a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65.

2. Yes.

The Comment filed by NPC is in the nature of a Motion for Reconsideration

The allegations of NPC and even the prayer in its comment sought the reconsideration
of the Clarificatory Order. Thus, upon the RTC's denial of the "Comment", NPC should
have already filed for a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, not a second motion for
reconsideration before the RTC. Thus, upon NPC's filing of its Petition for Certiorari on
December 2, 2008, the 60-day reglementary period of filing the same has already
lapsed.

3. No.

Technical rules of procedure should give way to serve substantial justice.

Notwithstanding the procedural lapses in this case, We opt not to deny the case based
on merely technical grounds. We must be reminded that deciding a case is not a mere
play of technical rules. If We are to abide by Our mandate to provide justice for all, We
should be ready to set aside technical rules of procedure when the same hampers
justice rather than to serve the same.

The RTC erred when it computed the 12.5% contingent fee on the basis of the original
award of P419,757,280.00.34 It is clear in the Contract of Legal Services that the
12.5% contingency fee should be computed on the amount of whatever award or
monetary consideration realized. Since the the amount actually received by the
Spouses Javellana under the compromise agreement was only P80,380,822.00,35
then the 12.5% contingency fee should be pegged on this amount. As such, Atty.
Muzones is only entitled to the amount of P10,047,602.75. Notwithstanding Our
finding that Atty. Muzones is entitled to the amount of P10,047,602.75, NPC is still
not liable to pay such amount. It is settled that payment of attorney's fees is the
personal obligation of the clients.