You are on page 1of 8

VOL.

327, MARCH 9, 2000 533
Cebu WomanÊs Club vs. De la Victoria
*
G.R. No. 120060. March 9, 2000.

CEBU WOMANÊS CLUB, petitioner, vs. HON. LORETO D.
DE LA VICTORIA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of
RTC, Br. 6, Cebu City, CAMSAC International, Inc. &
Phanuel Senoron, respondents.

Actions; Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; Questions of Law;
Words and Phrases; A party may directly appeal to the Supreme
Court from a decision of the trial court only on pure questions of law;
A question of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain set of facts as distinguished from a
question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as
to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.·PetitionerÊs direct
resort to this Court is erroneous. Under the Rules of Court, a party
may directly appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the
trial court only on pure questions of law. The case at bench does not
involve pure questions of law as to entitle petitioner to seek
immediate redress from this court. A question of law arises when
the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set
of facts as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when
the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the
alleged facts.
Same; Same; Same; Certiorari; In a petition for review on
certiorari, the trial judge should not be made a party to the case.·A
scrutiny of the issues raised in this case shows that it includes
factual matters. The resolution of the interpleader case necessitates
a determination of whether the other pending cases relied upon by
the trial court in dismissing the former case involves the same
matters covered by the latter cases. There is a need to determine
whether the pending civil cases arise out of the same facts and
circumstances as those involved in the interpleader case. As such,
petitionerÊs direct resort to this court must fail considering that this
court is not a trier of facts. Besides, in a petition for review on

It is only an error of judgment correctible by an ordinary appeal. De la Victoria Same. Same. Since petitioner availed of the remedy under Rule 45. petitioner should have observed the hierarchy of courts and not seek an immediate recourse to the highest tribunal. 534 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Cebu WomanÊs Club vs. Second. _________________ * SECOND DIVISION. The extraordinary writ does not issue to correct errors of procedure or mistake in the findings and conclusions of the judge. Where a party avails of the remedy under Rule 45. petitionerÊs claim that the trial court failed to observe the procedure for an interpleader action does not constitute grave abuse of discretion for the extraordinary writ to issue. Such special remedy does not avail in instances of error of judgment which can be corrected by appeal or by a petition for review.·The alleged grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction raised in the petition is misplaced. Same. Same.·PetitionerÊs imputation of grave abuse of discretion to respondent court as alleged in its petition is a vain attempt to justify its erroneous mode of challenging the trial courtÊs decision. There is no question that grave abuse of discretion or errors of jurisdiction may be corrected only by the special civil action of certiorari. Finally. Same. the trial judge should not even be made a party to the case as petitioner erroneously did. Same. recourse to Rule 65 cannot be allowed either as an add-on or as a substitute for appeal. First. The original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over special civil actions for certiorari is concurrent with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court. Same.certiorari. on the assumption that this is a proper subject of a certiorari case. PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the . Same. recourse to Rule 65 cannot be allowed either as an add-on or as a substitute for appeal. The original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over special civil actions for certiorari is concurrent with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court. there is no question that the trial court has jurisdiction over the interpleader case.

Inc. Jr. 535 VOL. dated March 9. Rufino L. CEB-17126. 1995 and April 11. Triple A Marketing Development Corporation. De la Victoria BUENA. herein respondent CAMSAC. Inc.. in Civil Case No. 1995. The corresponding construction contract was executed between the parties on January 26. J. the construction of the building was awarded by petitioner to respondent CAMSAC represented by its President/General Manager. On February 4. Salazar. materials used and taxes due in connection with the construction have been duly paid.. which dismissed its complaint for interpleader and damages against private respondent CAMSAC International Inc. due to the pendency of two other cases. Remoreras. Fernan. MARCH 9. including but not limited to salaries. Arc Asia Philippines.Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. (hereinafter referred to as „CAMSAC‰). 2000 535 Cebu WomanÊs Club vs. respondent Señoron filed a complaint for „sum of money with application for a writ of preliminary injunction‰ against petitioner and respondent CAMSAC .: Petitioner seeks to set aside the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In a bidding held on January 7.. 1994. Jr.. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Mercado & Cordero for petitioner. The present controversy started with the construction of the Cebu School of Midwifery Building owned by petitioner. for Phanuel Señoron. Inc. Juan B. which shall be released thirty (30) calendar days after inspection and acceptance by petitioner of the project and the submission of a sworn statement by respondent CAMSAC that all obligations. Architect Catalino M. for CAMSAC IntÊl. respondent CAMSAC entered into a „Sub-Contract Agreement‰ with respondent Señoron to undertake the construction of the subject building. After one year. 1994 with a stipulation on retention fee of ten (10%) percent to be deducted by petitioner from all progress payments to the contractor. 327. Astete. Trinidad Patigayon. Signal Trading Corporation and Malayan Insurance Co. Br. 1994. 6.

as there are pending cases before the respondent court filed by respondent Señoron for sum of money against petitioner and respondent CAMSAC which also involved the ten percent (10%) retention fee. The trial court held: „As herein before-stated. Arc Asia Phil. respondent CAMSAC filed an1 action for sum of money and damages against petitioner for failure of the latter to release the 10% retention fee. there is already a pending case by Señoron against the herein plaintiff. etc in Civil Case No. in order for them to interplead with one another to determine their respective rights and claims on the retention fee. hence. CEB-17079. The other defendants herein may intervene therein if they so desire to protect their respective interest in the same way that one of them. Arc Asia Philippines. On February 23.anchored on the „Sub-Contract Agreement‰ he entered with the latter. Trinidad Patigayon. De la Victoria In the meantime.. Signal Trading Corporation and Malayan Insurance Co. Plaintiffs proper move here would be to file an answer. Camsac International Inc. Inc. as president of the Camsac and in his personal capacity... Triple A Marketing Development Corporation. and Catalino M. Consequently. Salazar. petitioner allegedly received demand- letters from the suppliers-creditors as well as from respondent CAMSAC for the release of the 10% retention fee. had already filed its motion for . On March 9. Inc. on February 22. 536 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Cebu WomanÊs Club vs.·which it has not yet done up to this point in time although it managed to file this complaint post- haste·assert a counterclaim and/or a cross claim. Respondent Señoron sought to prevent petitioner from paying or releasing any amount to respondent CAMSAC relative to the construction of the subject building in the event that petitioner heeds CAMSACÊs request for the release of the retention fee. 1995. the trial court issued the first assailed Order dismissing the complaint for interpleader to prevent multiplicity of suits. to give due course to this present action would indeed result in a multiplicity of suits. it filed before the trial court a complaint for interpleader and damages against respondent CAMSAC.. Inc. 1995. 1995.

The case at bench does not involve . 1995. MARCH 9. 2. 77. ________________ 1 Rollo. petitionerÊs immediate resort to this Court by a petition3 for review on certiorari raising the following issues: 1. dated March 6. 327. Hence. Under the Rules of Court. 1995. respondent courtÊs 9 March 1995 Order is replete with „conclusions of fact and law‰ which.intervention. 3. and the same should be. Respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion. the complaint for interpleader is hereby denied due course. as it had no jurisdiction. Respondent court erred when it correlated the „allegation of fact‰ between the petitionerÊs complaint in Civil Case No. as it is hereby ordered dismissed. CEB-17126 with that of the complaint in Civil Case No. p. and to thereafter issue baseless and unwarranted conclusions patently adverse to petitioner. WHEREFORE. if allowed to remain unchallenged. to exercise „due course‰ authority and to motu proprio dismiss petitionerÊs action for interpleader. CEB-17079. Although no hearing has as yet been conducted and in what may amount to be a judgment on the pleadings. may be tried and decided in one proceeding. De la Victoria 2 SO ORDERED. may amount to a pre-judgment of certain issues of fact and law that are yet to be substantiated. a party may directly appeal to the Supreme Court from a 4 decision of the trial court only on pure questions of law. PetitionerÊs direct resort to this Court is erroneous. 2000 537 Cebu WomanÊs Club vs. in order that all their claims.‰ Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in the second assailed Order dated April 11. 537 VOL.

538 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Cebu WomanÊs Club vs.. Besides. De la Victoria A scrutiny of the issues raised in this case shows that it includes factual matters.pure questions of law as to entitle petitioner to seek immediate redress from this court. the alleged grave abuse of discretion and lack of . 3 Rollo. recourse to Rule 65 cannot be allowed 10 either as an add-on or as a substitute for appeal. Since petitioner availed of the remedy under Rule 45. Court of Appeals. in a petition for review on certiorari.. PetitionerÊs imputation of grave abuse of discretion to respondent court as alleged in its petition is a vain attempt to justify its erroneous mode of challenging the trial courtÊs decision. 269 SCRA 654 [1997]. 96. _________________ 2 Rollo. Inc. petitionerÊs direct resort to this court 6must fail considering that this court is not a trier of facts. There is no question that grave abuse of discretion or errors of jurisdiction may 8 be corrected only by the special civil action of certiorari. p. 5 Dela Torre v. As such. Such special remedy does not avail in instances of error of judgment which 9 can be corrected by appeal or by a petition for review.. p. et al. The resolution of the interpleader case necessitates a determination of whether the other pending cases relied upon by the trial court in dismissing the former case involves the same matters covered by the latter cases. et al. 281. Pepsi Cola Products Phils. A question of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference 5 arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. v. 298 SCRA 363. Verily. the trial judge should not even be made 7 a party to the case as petitioner erroneously did. 373 [1998]. 4 Laza. There is a need to determine whether the pending civil cases arise out of the same facts and circumstances as those involved in the interpleader case.

SO ORDERED. 1999. 276 SCRA 133. 4. 352. JJ. G. et al. Second.R. be it right or wrong. 8 Pure Blue Industries. The original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over special civil actions for certiorari is concurrent 12 with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court. 5th Revised Edition. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.. David-Chan v. 7 Regalado. Manila. City Sheriff. 314 SCRA 731.. 271 SCRA 757. Notes. p. Book I. Quisumbing and De Leon. G. 539 VOL. Court of Appeals. See also Philippine Airlines v. 108846. 10 Esguerra v. v. 271 SCRA 259.. Court of Appeals. 267 SCRA 380. ACCORDINGLY. 103453. et al. The extraordinary writ does not issue to correct errors of procedure 11 or mistake in the findings and conclusions of the judge. concur. Remedial Law Compendium. Mendoza. 9 See Medina. De la Victoria pleader case. the petition is denied for lack of merit. NLRC. 266 SCRA 242 cited in Ceremonia v. NLRC. et al.. is a . 268 SCRA 677 cited in Moomba Mining v. et al. Court of Appeals. Finally. on the assumption that this is a proper subject of a certiorari case. there is no question that the trial court has jurisdiction over the inter- ________________ 6 Benitez v. First.·An order of dismissal. petitionerÊs claim that the trial court failed to observe the procedure for an interpleader action does not constitute grave abuse of discretion for the extraordinary writ to issue. v. September 21. No. 1988. petitioner should have observed the hierarchy of courts and not seek an immediate recourse to the highest tribunal. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. Petition denied.. Rule 45. Comelec. Bellosillo (Chairman). 327. 1999. 2000 539 Cebu WomanÊs Club vs.R. Jr. MARCH 9. October 26. Inc. Sec. It is only an error of judgment correctible by an ordinary appeal. No. 276 SCRA 391 and Camlian v. 317 SCRA 388.jurisdiction raised in the petition is misplaced.

304 SCRA 95 [1999]) ··o0o·· _________________ 11 Lalican v. the Judiciary Act of 1945 and Section 21(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. Chua v. Inc. Court of Appeals.. Inc. . (Toyota Autoparts Philippines. 283 SCRA 211 citing Article VIII. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department of Labor and Employment. Vergara. Section 5(1). final order. All rights reserved. vs. 129. Del Rosario. et al. 1987 Constitution. which is subject to appeal and not a proper subject of certiorari. 12 Morales v. 276 SCRA 518. 540 © Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply. et al. 271 SCRA 546. (Heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay vs. 304 SCRA 18 [1999]) The traditional distinction is that errors of jurisdiction may be reviewed in certiorari proceedings while errors of judgment can be corrected only by appeal. Court of Appeals.