Cembrano v. Metrobank
On July 19, 2017, Cembrano moved for the reconsideration of the
G.R. No. 236429 | April 23, 2018
Doctrine: a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action, an
original petition confined solely to questions of jurisdiction because a tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Facts:
1. On January 6, 2016, Cembrano was served a Commencement Order 4 as
a creditor of EHD Logistics, Inc. which was undergoing rehabilitation
proceedings before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City (SCC Case
No. 16-071)
2. Despite receipt of the Commencement Order, on January 17, 2016,
Cembrano deposited in her Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company
(Metrobank) account five certified crossed checks totaling Twenty-Seven
Million Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P27,600,000.00) dated January 6,
2016 issued by EHD.
3. Metrobank dishonored the five checks deposited by Cembrano. Metrobank
noted uniformly on the said checks that the reason for the dishonor was
because of “DAIF/STAYORDER."
4. On March 1, 2016, Cembrano filed a complaint against Metrobank for the
recovery of a sum of money and damages. (Civil Case No. 16-33013)
5. On October 13, 2016, the RTC in Civil Case No. 16-33013 issued an Order
8 suspending the hearing of the case until the Commencement Order issued
by the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 38, in SCC Case No. 16-071 is lifted, or the
rehabilitation proceedings of BHD are terminated.
6. On December 29, 2016, the RTC issued an Order 9 denying petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration on the Order dated October 13, 2016.
Aggrieved, Cembrano filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court with the CA on February 20, 2017. Cembrano alleged that
the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it relied on the Commencement
Order to indefinitely suspend the proceedings in Civil Case No. 16-33013.
7. CA issued a resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari ruling that
Cembrano failed to pay the docket and other lawful fees, in violation of
Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; failed to attach
copies of all pleadings and documents which are necessary for a thorough
understanding and resolution of the instant Petition, pursuant to Section 3,
Rule 46;
8.
Resolution dated June 15, 2017. She filed, together with the motion for
reconsideration, the pleadings enumerated in the Resolution dated June 15,
2017 of the CA and a BPI check for the payment of docket fees.
9. CA Denied the MR
10. Hence, Cembrano filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court alleging, among others, that the CA gravely
abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari for technical
reasons and despite petitioner's subsequent compliance.
Issue: Whether Rule 45 is the proper remedy?
Held: No. Petition is denied.
Time and time again, the Court has clearly emphasized that there is a huge
difference between a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
In a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be put into issue.
A petition for review on certiorari brings up for review any error of judgment
committed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and over the
persons of the parties, or any error committed by the court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than an error of judgment.
On the other hand, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action,
an original petition confined solely to questions of jurisdiction because a
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Here, Cembrano committed a procedural blunder. In this petition for review on
certiorari, Cembrano raised the issue of whether or not the CA has gravely
abused its discretion. This is a jurisdictional issue and not a question of law. A
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed instead
of this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
In any case, the Court finds that the CA did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in rendering the Resolutions dated June 15, 2017 and December 6,
2017.
Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides for the requirements in filing
original cases with the CA.

In this case, it is beyond dispute that when Cembrano filed the petition for
certiorari, she failed to comply with Section 3 of Rule 46. Cembrano did not
attach all necessary pleadings, documents and pay the docket fees and lawful
fees. This alone warrants the dismissal of a petition in accordance with the
aforementioned rule.

The Court has also consistently ruled in a number of cases that the payment
of the full amount of docket fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory
and jurisdictional. It is a condition sine qua non for the Court to acquire
jurisdiction over the case. 19 Since the non-payment of the prescribed docket
fees by Cembrano did not vest the CA with jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the case, the CA cannot perform any action on the same except to order its
dismissal. Hence, the CA did not err when it issued the Resolution dated June
15, 2017 denying the petition for certiorari.

Indeed, there were instances where the Court has relaxed the strict application
of the rule that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period
is mandatory. In the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Judge Asuncion, 20
the Court decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the
payment of the docket fee, the Court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive
or reglementary period.

Here, Cembrano received a copy of the RTC's Order dated December 29,
2016 denying her motion for reconsideration on January 19, 2017. Cembrano
had 60 days or until March 20, 2017 to file a petition for certiorari with the CA
or in this case, to pay the docket fees, in accordance with the Rules of Court.
She only paid the docket fees on July 19, 2017, which was beyond the
reglementary period.