Crisologo vs. Globe Telecom, Inc.

478 SCRA 433

Facts:

Petitioner was an employee of respondent company. When she

was promoted, she became entitled to an executive car.
Sometime in April 2002, she was separated from the company.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and reinstatement
with NLRC which later dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved,
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the
dismissal.

Pending said petition, respondent filed an action for recovery of

possession of the motor vehicle with application for a writ of
replevin with damages before the RTC of Mandaluyong,
docketed as Civil Case No. MC04-2480. Subsequently, petitioner
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia and
forum shopping but the same was denied. Thus, petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA.

Afterwards, respondent filed a motion to declare defendant in

default in Civil Case No. MC04-2480. Such motion was granted
by the trial court. Respondent was then allowed to present its
evidence ex-parte. This prompted petitioner to file a motion for
reconsideration of the order of default; however, it was denied by
the trial court which rendered a judgment by default and ruled in
favor of respondent.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for

review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which
was denied for being the wrong remedy under the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended. Thus, petitioner moved for
reconsideration, alleging that the filing of said petition is the
proper recourse, citing Matute vs. Court of  Appeals, wherein it
was ruled that a defendant declared in default has the remedy
set forth in Sec. 2, par (3) of Rule 41.

Issue:

Whether or not the filing of a petition for review on certiorari with

the Supreme Court is the proper recourse for a judgment by

default rendered by the trial court?

Ruling:

No. The filing of the present petition is clearly not the proper
remedy to assail the default judgment rendered by the trial court.

The applicable rule in this case is Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended which provides for the
modes of appeal.

Under this Rule, petitioner still has the available remedy of filing a
motion for new trial with the RTC or an ordinary appeal to the CA
from the trial court’s default judgment.

However, petitioner argued that the petition involved questions of

law and the Supreme Court should have taken cognizance of the
same.

The Supreme Court held that the test of whether a question is

one of law or of fact is whether the appellate court can determine
the issue raised without the need of reviewing or evaluating the
evidence. If yes, then it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a
question of fact.

In this case, the issues on the award of damages call for the re-
evaluation of the evidence Thus, the same can be considered as
a question of fact. It is further provided that should an appeal
involved questions of fact, of law, or both, the case will then fall
within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

Based on the foregoing, the Court held that the argument of

petitioner that although the remedy she resorted to was wrong,
the Court may refer the case to the Court of Appeals under
Section 6(2), Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, which provides:

"An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the

Regional Trial Court submitting issues of fact may be referred to
the Court of Appeals for decision or appropriate action." This
despite the express provision in Section 5(f) of the same Rule,
which provides that an appeal may be dismissed when there is
error in the choice or mode of appeal.