HON. NENITA M. SUYAO, AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF KALILANGAN, BUKIDNON, LEONETO A. CASTANARES, RIZA L. MALEFICIO, JOSEFINA C. CHAVEZ, SIA T. SALUDARES, BASILIA A. PELADOR AND MARCIAL …

Suyao versus Cabanas

The Case

This is a case about the correct mode of appeal. The municipal mayor of Kalilangan, Bukidnon, and several other petitioners asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of their petition for review. They had lost before the Regional Trial Court in a special civil action that had been filed against the Bids and Awards Committee of Kalilangan. The petitioners argued that because the procurement law allows court action only through a petition for certiorari, the trial court's decision should be appealed by petition for review under Rule 42. The Supreme Court disagreed. The case matters because it settles a procedural question that every bidder and every procuring entity must answer: when a trial court rules on a petition for certiorari under the procurement law, is that ruling reviewed by ordinary appeal or by petition for review? The answer decides whether a case is dismissed outright for being the wrong mode of appeal.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of Malaybalay City, against the Bids and Awards Committee of Kalilangan, Bukidnon. The case was docketed as Special Civil Action Number 572-12. The trial court issued a resolution dated April 18, 2013. The petitioners then assailed that resolution before the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review under Rule 42. The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated May 21, 2014, dismissed the petition because it was the wrong mode of appeal. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, and that motion is what the Court resolved in this decision.

Facts

The Bids and Awards Committee of Kalilangan, Bukidnon, figured in a procurement dispute. The respondent in this case brought that dispute to the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court over the final decision of the head of the procuring entity, as provided in the procurement law.

The trial court acted on the petition and issued a resolution on April 18, 2013. The petitioners, led by the municipal mayor of Kalilangan, sought to challenge that resolution. They went to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 42, treating the trial court's resolution as if it had been rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as the wrong mode of appeal. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, insisting that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the trial court is the only mode of appeal allowed by the procurement law, and that an appeal from the trial court's ruling should therefore be by petition for review under Rule 42. The Court denied the motion.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before the Regional Trial Court under the procurement law is an original action rather than an appeal.
• Whether or not an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court on such a petition should be taken by ordinary appeal under Rule 41 rather than by petition for review under Rule 42.

Applicable Provisions

Section 58 of Republic Act Number 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, provides:

Section 58. Report to Regular Courts; Certiorari. Court action may be resorted to only after the protests contemplated in this Article shall have been completed. Cases that are filed in violation of the process specified in this Article shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The regional trial court shall have jurisdiction over final decision of the head of the procuring entity. Court actions shall be governed by Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This provision is without prejudice to any law conferring on the Supreme Court the sole jurisdiction to issue temporary restraining orders and injunctions relating to Infrastructure Projects of Government.

This provision vests jurisdiction in the Regional Trial Court over final decisions of the head of the procuring entity and prescribes Rule 65 as the remedy, but it does not say that the remedy is an appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action. Section 58 of the procurement law indeed vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Regional Trial Court over actions involving final decisions of the head of the procuring entity and prescribes that such actions may be brought only through the remedies under Rule 65, namely certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus. But nowhere in the provision is it declared that availing of those remedies shall be in the nature of an appeal. Neither can it be inferred from the provision that any petition filed under it is automatically divested of its nature as an original action.

On the second issue, the Court held that since the trial court's decision on the petition for certiorari was rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeals should be made by filing a notice of appeal under Rule 41, not a petition for review under Rule 42. The Court stated the rule plainly:

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action.

The Court therefore maintained that the petition for review under Rule 42 was the wrong mode of appeal to assail the April 18, 2013 resolution of the trial court, the correct remedy being an ordinary appeal under Section 2, paragraph a, of Rule 41.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action, not an appeal. When a Regional Trial Court decides such a petition in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the remedy from that decision is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, taken by filing a notice of appeal. A petition for review under Rule 42 is reserved for decisions rendered by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Section 58 of Republic Act Number 9184 designates Rule 65 as the remedy against final decisions of the head of the procuring entity, but it does not convert that remedy into an appeal, nor does it strip the petition of its original character. The mode of review is determined by the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the trial court, not by the label of the remedy it applied.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, so the earlier dismissal of their petition for review under Rule 42 stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action, so the appeal from the trial court's ruling goes up by notice of appeal under Rule 41, never by petition for review under Rule 42. Examiners use this case in remedial law and procurement questions to test whether you can trace the mode of appeal to the jurisdiction the trial court actually exercised.