Ong vs PDIC Case Digest August 18, 2010 GR 175116

Ong vs PDIC Case Digest

August 18, 2010  ; G.R. No. 175116

PRINCIPLE:

1.  Petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation is classified as a special proceeding.

2. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not mandatory and jurisdictional

3. Requirements for perfection of appeal in a special proceeding: Filing of both a notice of appeal and the record on appeal within thirty days from receipt of the notice of judgment or final order.

4. General Rule: Effect of failure to perfect an appeal =The party ccould no longer file an appeal and appellate could not acquire jurisdiction over the case

Reasons:

- The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege.

- Section 13 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court state that an appeal is dimissed if it failed to comply with the requirements for the perfection of an appeal.

Exception: Excusable neglect

5. Cases NOT considered excusable neglect:

- Petitioner's argument that his counsel's honest belief that their claim against the RBO assets and the civil case filed by RBO against petitioner for the annulment of mortgage were ordinary civil actions and a mere notice of appeal would be sufficient to perfect his appeal is not a satisfactory reason.

- petitioner's failure to submit a Record on Appeal on time due to serious complications surrounding the case leading him to an error of judgment where "an ordinary human being, courts,

FACTS:  Ong made some money market placements with OFI but when the same matured OFI was unable to pay Ong since the check it issued were dishonored by the drawee bank. OFI OFI then sought the assistance of its sister company RBO. RBO then executed in favor of Ong a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over two parcels of land. But OFI still failed to seasonably settle its obligations to petitioner hence the Ong proceeded to effect the extrajudicial foreclosure of said mortgages and the city sheriff of Tagaytay City issued a certificate of sale in favor of petitioner which were duly registered. Respondents failed to seasonably redeem said parcels of land, for which reason, petitioner has executed an affidavit of consolidation of ownership which has not been submitted to the Registry of Deeds of Tagaytay City, in view of the fact that possession of the aforesaid titles or owner's duplicate certificates of title remains with the RBO.

To date, petitioner has not been able to effect the registration of said parcels of land in his name in view of the persistent refusal of respondents to surrender RBO's copies of its owner's certificates of title for the parcels of land covered by the two TCTs.

Ong then filed with RTC a petition for the surrender of the titles of the Tagaytay properties against RBO. This case was ordered dismissed by CA since RTC lacked jurisdiction to try the case. But the dismissal was without prejudice to petitioner's right to file his claim in RBO's liquidation proceedings

Consequently, petitioner filed in Sp. Proc. No. 170-0-85 a Motion to Admit Claim against RBO's assets as a secured creditor and the winning bidder and/or purchaser of the Tagaytay properties in the foreclosure sale. The motion was at first admitted by the Acting Presiding Judge but this was later reversed by the Judge upon the filing of a Motion of Reconsideration by the respondent. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to which the RTC gave due course. This decision of RTC was reversed and hence the appeal is dismissed when respondent sought reconsideration of the said Order. The ground relied upon by the respondent was that petitioner failed to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction assailing the RTC Orders for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. CA dismissed the petition ruling that a record of appeal was necessary since Sp. Proc. No. 170-0-85 was for the liquidation of RBO and liquidation proceedings are considered special proceeding since multiple appeals are allowed in proceedings for liquidation of an insolvent corporation that needs a record of appeal to perfect the appeal. CA further stated that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Petitioner then files a petition for review on certiorari to SC. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: WON petitioner can appeal the case to the appellate court.

HELD: No since petitioner failed to comply with the requisites for perfecting an appeal of a case which is in the nature of a special proceedings and petitioner’s reason is not considered an excusable neglect that would allow the appealing of the case despite failure to comply with the requisites under the Rules of Court.

A liquidation of an insolvent corporation is classified as a special proceeding and hence its appeal requires both the filing of a notice of appeal and the record on appeal within thirty days from receipt of the notice of judgment or final order. In this case, petitioner failed to file a record on appeal. Hence, the RTC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal, since it is clearly stated under the Section 13 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court that filing of the notice of appeal must be accompanied by a record on appeal to perfect one's appeal in a special proceeding. Furthermore, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. he failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.

Petitioner's argument that his counsel's honest belief that their claim against the RBO assets and the civil case filed by RBO against petitioner for the annulment of mortgage were ordinary civil actions and a mere notice of appeal would be sufficient to perfect his appeal is not a satisfactory reason. Also, petitioner's failure to submit a Record on Appeal on time due to serious complications surrounding the case leading him to an error of judgment where "an ordinary human being, courts, not excepted, is susceptible to commit, is is not the excusable neglect envisioned by the rules in order to sidestep on the strict compliance with the rules on appeal. Thus, the erroneous assumption of petitioner's counsel could not excuse her from complying with the Rules. Petitioner is bound by the mistake of his counsel.