[ G.R. No. L-42626. December 08, 1982 ] 204 Phil. 418
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-42626. December 08, 1982 ]
ANITA G. TORRES AND LAZARO TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. NORA S. YU, JOSE B. YU AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
This case is about the much discussed and vexed question as to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under section 45 of the Judiciary Law, as amended by Republic Act No. 6031, to review the decision of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by an inferior court.
The municipal court of Lingayen, Pangasinan in its decision dated September 1, 1975 in an ejectment suit, Civil Case No. 3509, ordered the Yu spouses to vacate the one-third portion on the southern side of Stall No. 1 of the Lingayen Central Market and to pay the spouses Anita G. Torres and Lazaro Torres the sum of ninety pesos a month from February 19, 1975 until the possession of the stall is restored to the Torres spouses (p. 27, Rollo).
The Yu spouses appealed to the Court of First Instance which in a decision dated October 27, 1975 in Civil Case No. 15178 affirmed the municipal court’s judgment (p. 40, Rollo). A copy of that decision was received by the Yu spouses on October 28, 1975. Fifteen days later, they filed a motion for reconsideration. They received the order denying it on December 9, 1975 (p. 75, Rollo). Fourteen days later, or on December 23, they mailed their petition for review to the Court of Appeals (p. 5, Rollo).
The Court of Appeals in its resolution of January 13, 1976 gave due course to that petition, required the Torres spouses to answer it, set the case for hearing on February 11 and directed the issuance of a preliminary injunction upon private respondents’ filing of a bond in the sum of one thousand pesos (Yu vs. Torres, CA-G. R. No. SP-04952).
That resolution was assailed by the Torres spouses in the instant special civil action of certiorari which they filed in this Court on February 2, 1976. Their petition was given due course. (In the meantime, the decision of the Court of First Instance was executed).
The Torres spouses contend that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 6031 to review the said decision of the Court of First Instance because the issue of whether its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence is allegedly a purely legal question which this Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve (pp. 7 and 11, Rollo).
Diametrically opposed to that contention is the position taken by the respondents Yu. They contend that whether the factual findings in the decision of the Court of First Instance are supported by substantial evidence is an issue that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (pp. 95, 100-103, Rollo).
In resolving these conflicting views, it is necessary to examine the lawmaker’s efforts to diminish the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over cases decided by the Court of First Instance which are exclusively cognizable by inferior courts and thus relieve in some measure the congestion of cases in the appellate courts.
In the beginning, all cases decided by the Court of First Instance involving factual issues were appealable to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right. Note that no distinction was made as to cases coming from inferior courts and cases originally filed in the Court of First Instance. Before the Judiciary Law was amended, it provided:
“SEC. 29. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.- The Court of Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases, actions, and proceedings not enumerated in section seventeen of this Act, properly brought to it from Courts of First Instance. The decision of the Court of Appeals in such cases shall be final:
“Provided, however, That the Supreme Court in its discretion may, in any case involving a question of law, upon petition of the party aggrieved by the decision and under rules and conditions that it may prescribe, require by certiorari that the said case be certified to it for review and determination, as if the case had been brought before it on appeal.”
To avoid protracted litigations over cases coming from inferior courts, like ejectment cases, which could pass through four courts, including this Court, the lawmaking body found it expedient to abolish appeals to the Court of Appeals from judgments of the Court of First Instance in cases decided by inferior courts and to allow the Court of Appeals to review the said judgments by means of a petition for review under certain conditions.
Hence, it enacted Republic Act No. 5433, which took effect on September 9, 1968 and which amended section 29 by providing that decisions of Courts of First Instance rendered after trial on the merits in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, which affirm in full the judgment of an inferior court, may be elevated to the Court of Appeals by the aggrieved party only on petition for review and that the Court of Appeals may entertain that petition when it shows prima facie that the Court of First Instance “has committed errors of fact or of fact and law that would warrant reversal or modification of the judgment or decision sought to be reviewed”. For reference, section 29, as amended by Republic Act No. 5433, is quoted below:
“SEC. 29. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases, actions, and proceedings, not enumerated in section seventeen of this Act, properly brought to it, except final judgments or decisions of Courts of First Instance rendered after trial on the merits in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which affirm in full the judgment or decision of a municipal or city court, in which cases the aggrieved party may elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals only on petition for review, to which the Court of Appeals shall give due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the court has committed errors of fact or of fact and law that would warrant reversal or modification of the judgment or decision sought to be reviewed. The decision of the Court of Appeals shall be final:
“Provided, however, That the Supreme Court in its discretion may, in any case involving a question of law, upon petition of the party aggrieved by the decision and under rules and conditions that it may prescribe, require by certiorari that the said case be certified to it for review and determination, as if the case had been brought before it on appeal.”
On the other hand, section 45 of the Judiciary Law originally provided that “Courts of First Instance shall have appellate jurisdiction over all cases arising in municipal and justice of the peace courts, in their respective provinces”. Note that no distinction was made between cases exclusively cognizable by inferior courts and cases falling within the concurrent jurisdiction of inferior courts and the Court of First Instance.
Republic Act No. 2613, which took effect on August 1, 1959 and which enlarged the jurisdiction of inferior courts in criminal cases, amended sections 45 and 87 by providing that the decisions of justices of the peace of provincial capitals and city judges in criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed six years’ imprisonment or a fine of three thousand pesos, or both, shall be appealable directly to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court as the case may be. The proceedings in such cases shall be recorded.
In the meantime, Republic Acts Nos. 3345, 3820 and 3828 changed the designation of justice of the peace and municipal judge into municipal judge and city judge, respectively. The term “inferior court” is now used to refer to municipal and city courts (SC Resolution of December 23, 1963).
Republic Act No. 6031, which took effect on August 4, 1969, amended section 77 of the Judiciary Law by providing that “all municipal and city courts shall keep records of their proceedings in the same manner as courts of first instance” and “all judgments determining the merits of cases shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the municipal or city judge, stating clearly the facts and the law on which they are based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court”. Thus, inferior courts became courts of record.
Republic Act No. 6031 also amended section 45 of the Judiciary Law by abolishing the trial de novo provided for in section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court (when inferior courts were not court of records) and by requiring the Court of First Instance in deciding cases appealed from the inferior court to decide them on the basis of the record transmitted from the inferior court to the Court of First Instance.
Republic Act No. 6031 further amended section 45 by adopting the innovation introduced by Republic Act No. 5433 in section 29 of the Judiciary Law. That amendment or innovation is that the decision of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by the inferior court shall be final.
But in contrast with Republic Act No. 5433, Republic Act No. 6031 (enacted less than a year from the enactment of Republic Act No. 5433) provides that the decision of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by the inferior court shall be final only when the factual findings in the said decision are supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions therein are not clearly against the law and jurisprudence.
Another amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 6031 into section 45 is that the decision of the inferior court in cases falling within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and an inferior court shall be appealable directly to the Court of Appeals whose decision shall be final, subject to review by this Court on legal questions as provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As amended, section 45 reads:
“SEC. 45. Appellate jurisdiction.- Courts of First Instance shall have appellate jurisdiction over all cases arising in city and municipal courts, in their respective provinces, except over appeals from cases tried by municipal judges of provincial capitals or city judges pursuant to the authority granted under the last paragraph of Section 87 of this Act.
“Courts of First Instance shall decide such appealed cases on the basis of the evidence and records transmitted from the city or municipal courts: Provided, That the parties may submit memoranda and/or brief with oral argument if so requested: Provided, however, That if the case was tried in a city or municipal court before the latter became a court of record, then on appeal the case shall proceed by trial de novo.
“In cases falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal and city courts which are appealed to the courts of first instance, the decision of the latter shall be final: Provided, That the findings of facts contained in said decision are supported by substantial evidence as basis thereof, and the conclusions are not clearly against the law and jurisprudence; in cases falling under the concurrent jurisdictions of the municipal and city courts with the courts of first instance, the appeal shall be made directly to the court of appeals whose decision shall be final: Provided, however, that the Supreme Court in its discretion may, in any case involving a question of law, upon petition of the party aggrieved by the decision and under rules and conditions that it may prescribe, require by certiorari that the case be certified to it for review and determination, as if the case had been brought before it on appeal.”
It is at once evident that Republic Acts Nos. 5433 and 6031 overlap or are in pari materia with respect to the finality of the decision of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by an inferior court such as ejectment cases. Both laws abolished appeal by record on appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by an inferior court. Such cases are not, repeat, are not appealable to the Court of Appeals.
Both Republic Acts Nos. 5433 and 6031, the former in section 29, dealing with the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and the latter in section 45, dealing with the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, intend that litigation should, if possible, be terminated in the Court of First Instance.
However, both amendatory laws assume that the Court of First Instance is not infallible. Therefore, in exceptional cases the rule on finality should not be enforced and the decision of the Court of First Instance in the cases exclusively cognizable by an inferior court should be reviewed by an appellate court.
Republic Act No. 5433 provides that the decision of the Court of First Instance in that kind of cases may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals by means of a petition for review when it is apparent that the Court of First Instance committed errors of fact or of fact and law and that there is some basis for possible reversal or modification of its decision notwithstanding the fact that the Court of First Instance affirmed in toto the inferior court’s decision.
On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6031, while allowing also the review of the decision of the Court of First Instance in those same cases, does not unmistakably and explicitly indicate the appellate court that should undertake the review and by what means the review should be made. That deficiency or silence has generated controversy.
Republic Act No. 6031 changed the grounds for review spelled out in Republic Act No. 5433. Republic Act No. 6031 provides that the grounds for review are that the factual findings in the decision of the Court of First Instance in the said class of cases are not supported by substantial evidence and that its conclusions are contrary to law and jurisprudence.
It is obvious that, as to the grounds for review, there is repugnancy between the two amendatory laws. Republic Act No. 6031, as the later law, should prevail and should be deemed to have superseded Republic Act No. 5433 on the matter of the review by the Court of Appeals of decisions of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by inferior courts.
But Republic Act No. 5433 should not be considered totally abrogated by the later law because Republic Act No. 5433, in indicating that the mode of review is by petition for review and that the Court of Appeals is the tribunal to undertake the review, supplies the deficiencies of Republic Act No. 6031 on these matters.
The question of whether it is this Court or the Court of Appeals that should review the decision of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by inferior courts has been debated for a long time in this Court. The pros and cons have been thoroughly threshed out. One school of thought believes that the petition should always be filed in this Court. Of course, that solution would aggravate the congestion of cases in this Court.
It is said that hard cases make bad law. The converse is true. A bad law (meaning a law that is ambiguous and deficient) makes cases hard. Republic Act No. 6031 is such a law. The lawmaking body did not indubitably clarify whether it was intended to repeal Republic Act No. 5433 and where the petition for review should be filed.
We hold that if the only issue is whether the conclusions of the Court of First Instance are in consonance with law and jurisprudence, then that issue is a purely legal question. It should be ventilated in this Court by means of a petition for review on certiorari, as expressly provided in the last proviso of section 45, as amended by Republic Act. No. 6031.
The petition for review in that case should be in the form prescribed in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court for an appeal from the Court of Appeals, a form adopted by Republic Act No. 5440 which took effect on September 9, 1968.
But if the issue is whether “the findings of fact contained” in the decision of the Court of First Instance “are supported by substantial evidence”, which is not purely a legal issue, or if that issue is raised together with the legal issue of whether the conclusions of the Court of First Instance are in conformity with pertinent law and jurisprudence, then the petition for review should be filed in the Court of Appeals.
Those issues require an examination and evaluation of the evidence. As that function is the prerogative of the Court of Appeals, the review in that case should be by means of a petition for review.
Realizing the deficiencies in Republic Act No. 6031, the Court of Appeals adopted on August 12, 1971 the following resolution (67 O. G. 6715) which prescribes the filing of a petition for review when the decision of the Court of First Instance in cases exclusively cognizable by an inferior court is assailed for not being supported by substantial evidence and because its conclusions are claimed to be contrary to law and jurisprudence:
“WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 6031 does not prescribe the procedure to be followed by the Court of Appeals in the review of judgments of the Courts of First Instance, in cases falling under the original exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal and city courts, where the findings of facts of the Courts of First Instance are assailed for not being supported by substantial evidence as basis thereof and the conclusions are claimed to be clearly against the law and jurisprudence;
“WHEREAS, it is the sense of this Court that a uniform practice be followed by all its divisions and members thereof in reviewing the abovementioned decisions of Courts of First Instance;
“NOW THEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVED, that the following practice be observed in elevating to this Court for review decisions of Courts of First Instance in cases falling under the original exclusive jurisdiction of municipal and city courts:
“SECTION 1. That the aggrieved party shall file within the period for appealing six (6) copies of a verified petition for the review of the decision of the Court of First Instance. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the matters involved and the grounds and arguments relied upon, specifically pointing out why the decision in question is not supported by substantial evidence and/or is clearly against the law and jurisprudence. The petition shall be accompanied with a certified true copy of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed, together with copies of such material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. As much as possible, the petition shall be a sort of a brief of the aggrieved party.
“SEC. 2. Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals the docketing fee. If the Court finds that, from the allegations of the petition, the same is not prima facie meritorious or is intended manifestly for delay, the Court may outright dismiss the petition, otherwise, the same shall be given due course, in which case, the petitioner shall deposit the amount of eighty pesos (P80.00) for costs within three days from notice of the resolution giving due course to the petition. Upon the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount for costs within the said period of three (3) days, the petition shall be dismissed.
“SEC. 3. Immediately after the deposit for costs is made, the Court shall order the respondents to answer the petition for review within ten (10) days, unless the Court shall grant the respondents a longer period, and shall likewise order the corresponding Clerk of the Court of First Instance to elevate the whole record, including the oral (transcript of stenographic notes) and documentary evidence, of the case to this Court within ten (10) days. The answer of the respondents, which shall also be in six copies, shall be accompanied with true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein together with other supporting papers. Likewise the answer shall take the place of the respondents’ brief.
“SEC. 4. After the filing of the answer, the petitioner may reply thereto within five (5) days from receipt of copy thereof, after which, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision unless either party shall, within five (5) days from the filing of petitioner’s reply, ask that the petition be heard on oral argument, which may or may not be granted at the discretion of the Court.”
In the instant case, the Yu spouses in filing their petition for review in the Court of Appeals simply followed the said resolution. It is a correct implementation of Republic Act No. 6031 which has been in force for more than eleven years now (See Buenbrazo vs. Marave, L-41144, December 29, 1980, 101 SCRA 849 and Estrella vs. CA, 56284, January 30, 1982, 111 SCRA 581).
The Yu spouses assailed the adverse judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan on the ground that the factual findings therein are not supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals (per Gatmaitan, J.) acted within its jurisdiction and did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the petition for review of the Yu spouses.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed with costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. Teehankee, Acting C.J., De Castro and Vasquez, JJ., file their separate opinion. Fernando, C.J., on leave.