AIDA TUAZON, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE SPOUSES AURELIO AND FRANCISCA MENDIGORIA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to
reverse and set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 29,
1993, which dismissed the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No.
30005, and the Resolution dated February 23, 1993, which denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.

I

Petitioner was the defendant in an ejectment case, which was
decided adversely against her by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch
16, Manila, affirmed in toto the decision of the Metropolitan
Trial Court. Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration of the said decision, which was denied.

On January 25, 1993, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R.
SP No. 30005).

On January 29, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition,
holding that inasmuch as the petitioner assailed the decision of the Regional
Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the mode of appeal should be by a petition
for review under Circular No. 2-90 dated March 9, 1990, and not by a petition
for certiorari (Rollo, p. 23).

On February 15, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
with a motion to amend the title of the petition from “Petition” to
“Petition for Review” (Rollo, pp. 48-52). On February 23, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration (Rollo, p. 26).

Hence this petition.

II

The issues raised by petitioner can be reduced to the proposition
whether the petition which she filed under Rule 65 can be treated as a petition
for review under Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,
Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules and Circular No. 2-90.

There is no question that the decision of the Regional Trial
Court subject of the petition for certiorari was rendered in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Under Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 and Section
22(b) of the Interim Rules, decisions of the Regional Trial Court in cases appealed
from the Municipal Trial Court, shall be appealed by petition for review to the
Court of Appeals (Lacsamana v. Second Special Cases Division of the
Intermediate Appellate Court, 143 SCRA 643 [1986]).

Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 provides:

“Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction
over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions. Such cases shall be
decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court
of origin such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be
appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals which may give it due
course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower
court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
modification of the decision or judgement sought to be reviewed.”

Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules substantially reproduced
Section 22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 and added the following
paragraph:

“The petition for review shall be governed by the Resolution
of the Court of Appeals dated August 12, 1971, as modified in the manner
indicated in the preceding paragraph hereof.”

Under paragraph 3(b) of Circular No. 2-90, the appeal to the
Court of Appeals from the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be
taken by a petition for review.

We agree with petitioner that her petition filed with the Court
of Appeals can be treated as a petition for review under Circular No. 2-90,
even without changing the designation of the pleading from “Petition” to “Petition
for Review.”

The form of a petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals
is prescribed in Section 3(a), Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the
Court of Appeals, thus:

“a. Contents. – The petition shall: (1) state the material dates showing that it
is filed on time; and (2) set
forth concisely the matters involved and the grounds for the petition
specifying the errors of fact, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional
Trial Court. The petition shall comply
with the requirements for an appellant’s brief.”

b. What should be filed. – The petition shall be accompanied by a certified
true copy of the disputed decisions, judgments or orders of the lower courts,
together with true copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of
the petition.”

Under Section 16, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court, an
appellant’s brief shall contain basically the following:

(1) A subject index of
the matter in the brief;

(2) An assignment of the errors;

(3) A clear and
concise statement of (i) a summary of the proceedings and such other matters
necessary to the understanding of the nature of the controversy; (ii) a clear
and concise statement in the narrative form of the facts; and (iii) the issues
to be submitted to the court;

(4) The appellant’s
arguments on such assignment of errors; and

(5) The specification of
the order or judgment which appellant seeks, and a copy of judgment or order
appealed from.

The “Petition” filed in CA-G.R. SP No. 30005 defined
the issues submitted to the Court of Appeals for its judgment and assigned as
errors the following:

(1) The complaint should
have been dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction;

(2) Respondent court
should have completely nullified the entire proceedings before the Metropolitan
Trial Court; and

(3) Article 1687 should
have been applied to prevent grave injustice and serious irreparable injury to
petitioner (Rollo, pp. 32-38).

The form and substance of the petition filed in the Court of
Appeals satisfied all the requirements of a petition for review under Section
22 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Section 22(b) of the Interim
Rules and Circular 2-90.

The petition contained a statement of the nature of the action
and a summary of the proceedings in both the Metropolitan Trial Court and the
Regional Trial Court. It also alleged
pertinent facts necessary for the understanding of the case and the grounds
relied upon in support thereof. Attached thereto was the duplicate of the original copy of the decision
of the Regional Trial Court.

Under the heading “Argument,” it discussed each of the
assigned errors, with a citation of the authorities relied upon. In the last paragraph, it specified the
judgment and other reliefs sought. It
also stated the material dates showing that it was filed on time.

What must have swayed the Court of Appeals to rule that the
petition before it could only be read as one for certiorari under Rule
65 is the following statement therein:

“Under the Revised Rule On Summary Procedure adopted by
respondent court (which is inapplicable to the case at bar) there is NO
APPEAL. Hence, to remedy the grave
injustice which is compounded by LACK OF JURISDICTION and GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and there are no other plain,
speedy or adequate remedy, this petition under Rule 65, Sec. 1 of the Revised
Rules of Court this hereby availed of, as the last remedy, with urgent prayer
for issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory Injunction/TRO” (Rollo, p.
31).

The said allegation in the petition filed with the Court of
Appeals may be treated as a surplusage and cannot detract from a consideration
of the petition as one for a review under Section 22 of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, Section 22(b) of the Interim Rules and Circular 2-­90.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals in question are REVERSED
and the Court of Appeals is ORDERED
to decide the appealed case in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 30005 on the merits.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.