View full case

SPS. GREGORIO GO v. JOHNSON Y. TONG

FACTS:

Petitioner Juana Tan Go purchased a cashier's check from the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) in the amount of P500,000.00, payable to Johnson Y. Tong (private respondent). The cashier's check was instructed to bear the words "Final Payment/Quitclaim" after the payee's name, to ensure that private respondent would no longer ask for further payments for his interest in the dissolved business partnership.

After the check was delivered to private respondent, it was deposited with the words "Final Payment/Quitclaim" already erased, resulting in non-payment. Private respondent's counsel requested the bank to replace the check with another payable to "Johnson Tong-Final Settlement/Quitclaim" with the same amount, with the bank charges to be paid by private respondent. However, the bank did not grant the request.

As a result, private respondent filed a complaint against FEBTC and petitioner Juana and her husband Gregorio Go for sum of money, damages, and attorney's fees. Petitioners and FEBTC alleged that the erasure of the words "Final Payment/Quitclaim" was intentional on private respondent's part, indicating his intention to collect more from petitioner Juana.

During the pendency of the case, petitioner's son filed a criminal complaint against private respondent for falsification of the check, which was later dismissed. Private respondent requested to file a supplemental complaint seeking an increase in the amount of damages.

The trial court granted private respondent's motion to file a supplemental complaint and admitted the supplemental complaint despite the opposition of petitioners and FEBTC. Petitioners deposited the amount of the check to the court, subject to the condition that it shall remain deposited until the disposition of the case.

The trial court then allowed private respondent to pay the docket fees on a staggered basis. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, questioning the orders of the trial court.

The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the trial court's orders, ruling that the docket fee payment scheme imposed by the trial court was not gravely abusive.

Petitioners then filed this Petition before the Supreme Court, raising several issues for consideration.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Petition for Certiorari was filed under the correct mode of appeal.

  2. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the release of the deposited money.

  3. Whether the petitioners can be excused from the effects of the Order dated February 5, 1999, which they allegedly did not know about due to negligence or oversight.

  4. Whether the payment of the docket fee on a staggered basis was allowed in violation of the parameters set by the Supreme Court in Sun Insurance Office Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion.

  5. Whether the respondent judge should have inhibited himself from the case and suspended the proceedings pending the resolution of the Petition for Certiorari before the appellate court.

RULING:

  1. The Petition for Certiorari was not filed under the correct mode of appeal. The petitioners should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court instead of a special civil action under Rule 65. However, the Court decided to overlook this procedural technicality in the interest of substantial justice and ruled on the merits of the case.

  2. The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing the release of the deposited money. There was a prior understanding between the parties that the money could be withdrawn by the respondent if he desired. The petitioners failed to assail the order allowing the withdrawal within the prescribed period and only questioned it after more than one year had passed. They also did not file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari. Therefore, they cannot claim that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.

  3. Petitioners cannot be excused from the effects of the order dated February 5, 1999, even if their ignorance of its existence was due to negligence or oversight. Private respondent is entitled to the deposit because it represented the amount indicated on the check that undeniably belonged to him.

  4. The payment of the docket fee on a staggered basis was not in violation of the parameters set by the Supreme Court in Sun Insurance Office Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion. The payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement but its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case as long as the fee is paid within a reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Private respondent paid the docket fee in a year's time, which was deemed reasonable.

  5. The issues of inhibition and suspension of proceedings were not properly raised before the appellate court, therefore, the Court did not rule on them.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed when a tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

  • Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides for the appeal of decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals through a petition for review.

  • Certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including an appeal under Rule 45.

  • Before resorting to certiorari, a petitioner must have filed a motion for reconsideration of the act or order complained of with the lower court, except in certain exceptional cases. This allows the lower court to correct its mistakes in the first instance.

  • The payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement for filing a case, but its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case as long as the fee is paid within a reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

  • Certiorari can lie against a judge for grave abuse of discretion only when the abuse of discretion committed is grave, arbitrary, or despotically exercised by reason of passion or personal hostility, and such exercise amounts to a virtual refusal to perform a positive duty or to act in contemplation of law.