Kho vs. Camacho, 204 SCRA 150 G.R. No. 82789

G.R. No.
82789 November 21, 1991

NARCISO KHO, petitioner,
vs.
MANUEL CAMACHO, SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, and HONORABLE OSCAR LEVISTE, Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97, respondents.
Topic: RTC cannot dismiss appeal on ground that only questions of law involved
Ponente: FERNAN, C.J.:
The facts are as follows:
In payment of attorney's fees resolved against him, petitioner Narciso Kho, a businessman,
issued in favor of private respondent Atty. Manuel Camacho six (6) postdated Manila Bank
checks in the total sum of P57,349.00. One of the checks, in the amount of P10,000.00, was lost
by Atty. Camacho who promptly notified petitioner. When the other five (5) checks were
negotiated by Camacho with the Philippine Amanah Bank, the same were returned uncleared
because Manila Bank had been ordered closed by the Central Bank.
Because of petitioner's refusal to replace the Manila Bank checks or pay his obligation,
Camacho instituted an action for a sum of money against petitioner before respondent trial
court. 1
In his answer, petitioner alleged that he was under no obligation to replace the lost check for
P10,000.00, arguing that Camacho should have executed a sworn statement that he lost the
check issued to him and furnished both the drawer and the bank with said statement so that
the bank could place on the check "under alarmed," instead of merely informing petitioner.
Petitioner also refused to issue new checks maintaining that the closure of Manila Bank (in
which he had an outstanding deposit of P581,571.84 which was more than enough to cover the
cost of the five checks) was beyond his control and therefore he was in no financial position to
pay Camacho unless and until his money in that beleaguered bank was released.
Contending that petitioner's answer failed to tender a genuine issue, Camacho moved for a
judgment on the pleadings which respondent Judge Leviste granted in his order of February 12,
1988. In said order, respondent Judge directed petitioner to pay Camacho P57,349.00 "minus
the P10,000.00 pertaining to the lost check, or a total of P47,349.00 with interest at the legal
rate of 6% from June 2, 1987, until fully paid, with costs or attorney's fees." 2
On February 25, 1988, petitioner seasonably filed a notice of appeal stating that he was
appealing the February 12, 1988 order to the Court of Appeals. Respondent Judge duly
approved said notice in his order of February 29, 1988.
On the other hand, despite the reduced money judgment, Camacho made no move to contest
the award. Instead, he filed a motion/manifestation praying that petitioner's notice of appeal
be stricken off the record as a mere scrap of paper.
Acting on the aforesaid motion, respondent Judge issued the assailed order of March 29, 1988
setting aside the previously approved notice of appeal and adopting Camacho's view that the
proper remedy from a judgment on the pleadings was a petition for certiorari to the Supreme
Court. Said order reads:
In view of the Motion/Manifestation dated March 1, 1988, which this Court finds with
merit, . . ., this Court believing that only questions of law are involved, hence the proper
remedy should be a petition for certiorari, there being no question of fact presented by the
pleadings and the order in Summary Judgment, the order of this Court approving the notice of
appeal is hereby cancelled and a new order is hereby made that said notice of appeal is
disapproved. 3
Hence this petition for certiorari.
Issues: WON respondent Judge Leviste erred in ruling:
First, he listened to Camacho who could not even distinguish between a petition for certiorari
and a petition for review on certiorari.
Secondly, he pre-empted a prerogative that legally pertains to the Court of Appeals when he
disapproved petitioner's notice of appeal "believing that only questions of law are involved."
Ruling:
By dismissing the appeal on the ground that it was misdirected because the case was resolved
by it on a pure question of law, the trial court committed a grave error. Respondent Judge
should have allowed the Intermediate Appellate Court to decide whether or not the petitioner's
appeal involves only a question of law and not arrogate unto himself the determination of this
question. His error in dismissing petitioner bank's appeal becomes even more obvious
considering the provisions of Section 3 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, wherein it is specifically
provided that "where the appealed case has been erroneously brought to the Court of Appeals,
it shall not dismiss the appeal but shall certify the case to the proper court, with a specific and
clear statement of the grounds therefor."
Thus, following the above pronouncements, what respondent Judge should have done under
the circumstances was to sustain his approval of the notice of appeal and leave it to the Court
of Appeals to certify the case to the proper tribunal if warranted. Indeed, Judge Leviste had
absolutely no authority to disapprove the notice of appeal. Under the present rules, his role is
to approve or disapprove the record on appeal (when required) and the appeal bond, but not a
notice of appeal. A notice of appeal does not require the approval of the trial court. 5
Nonetheless, although a procedural error was committed by respondent Judge in disapproving
petitioner's notice of appeal, to require him to give due course to the appeal and then elevate
the records of Civil Case No. Q-52014 to the Appellate Court will serve no useful purpose and
will only delay the resolution of an otherwise open-and-shut case. The records before us are
sufficient to enable us to rule on the propriety of the judgment on the pleadings and to
terminate this case once and for all.
The obligation to pay P57,349.00 in attorney's fees is admitted. The appropriate checks in
payment therefor have been issued. However, one check was misplaced through the creditor's
fault while the other five were dishonored because the drawee bank has ceased to operate.
A perusal of petitioner's answer convinces us that the judgment on the pleadings was proper. In
that pleading, petitioner disavowed any obligation to replace the useless checks and
gratuitously advanced the reason that the bank where he had deposited his lifetime savings had
been closed through no fault of his. In effect, what petitioner was saying was that Camacho
should wait until he (petitioner) was in a position to pay. This is not a sufficient controversion of
the material allegations in the complaint.
Finding no reversible error in the judgment on the pleadings rendered by respondent Judge
Leviste, the Court considers the same as the final adjudication on the respective rights of the
parties.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, certiorari is hereby DENIED. No costs.

Kho vs. Camacho, 204 SCRA 150 G.R. No. 82789

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kho vs. Camacho, 204 SCRA 150 G.R. No. 82789

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kho vs. Camacho, 204 SCRA 150 G.R. No. 82789

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

82789 November 21, 1991

You might also like