PROVIDENT INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND NORTHERN MINDANAO TRANSPORT CO., INC., RESPONDENTS.

On 3 January 1987, Atlas Fertilizer Corporation (ATLAS for
brevity) shipped 13,000 bags of fertilizer from Sangi, Toledo City, to Iloilo
City through MV Ana Alexandria owned by private
respondent Northern Mindanao Transport Co., Inc. (NORTHERN for brevity). Petitioner Provident Insurance Corp.
(PROVIDENT for brevity) insured the shipment against damage or loss.

When the shipment reached Iloilo City, one bag of fertilizer was
missing and 188 bags sustained unrecovered spillage of 887.50 kgs. Additional unrecovered spillage of 1,712.50
kgs. from 118 torn bags was incurred while the shipment was being transported
from the vessel to the warehouse of ATLAS by broker Benny Espinosa Trucking
Services (BENNY for brevity).

On 13 October 1987, ATLAS made a formal demand from NORTHERN to
pay P3,461.25 representing one bag shortlanded and unrecovered spillage from
118 bags. NORTHERN refused to pay. On 26 April 1988 ATLAS nonetheless recovered from PROVIDENT the
amount of P7,311.04 for the damage and loss to its shipment and the latter was
accordingly subrogated to the rights of the former.

On 9 November 1988, PROVIDENT initiated this collection suit for
reimbursement of P7,311.04 against NORTHERN before the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Makati (MeTC). After the answer and
position papers were filed pursuant to the Rule on Summary Procedure, but
pending resolution of PROVIDENT’s motion to admit amended complaint to implead
broker BENNY as defendant, the MeTC of Makati, Branch 64, rendered on 28
September 1989 a decision dismissing the complaint under the Carriage of Goods
by Sea Act (COGSA) for having been filed beyond the 1-year reglementary
period. A motion for reconsideration
filed by PROVIDENT was denied on 24 November 1989. PROVIDENT appealed to the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati but on 28 January 1993 said court
affirmed the court a quo.

On 24 February 1993, PROVIDENT filed before respondent Court of
Appeals a petition for review of
the RTC decision. On 2 March 1993 the appellate court
dismissed the petition for having
been expressly taken upon a pure question of law, non-certification of the annexed copy of the RTC
decision and lack of certification against forum-shopping.^[1]
PROVIDENT moved for reconsideration but it was denied on 28 May 1993. Hence, this recourse.

Aside from maintaining that
the COGSA reglementary period is not applicable to domestic commerce,
PROVIDENT also asserts that what
it raised before the Court of Appeals was a question of fact. Specifically, PROVIDENT alleges that
“(a)n examination of the evidence has to be done because the error pointed
out by the issue in question relates to the failure of the court
a quo to
consider the validity and merits of plaintiff’s claim.”^[2]
It invokes “the power of review” of appellate courts which is “broad enough to encompass issues
not passed upon by the lower
court and would even extend to
matters not assigned as errors on appeal,”^[3]
apparently hinting that the Court of Appeals and this Court should resolve the
factual issues involved and decide the petition on the merits.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

On 9 March 1990, we issued Circular No. 2-90 setting guidelines
to be observed in appeals to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme
Court. Thus –

x x x x

4.  Erroneous
Appeals. – An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court
of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.

x x x x

c) Raising issues purely of law in the
Court of Appeals, or appeal
by wrong mode. – If an appeal under Rule 41 is taken from the Regional
Trial Court to the Court of Appeals and therein the appellant raises only
questions of law, the appeal shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being
reviewable by said court. So, too, if
an appeal is attempted from the judgment rendered by a Regional Trial Court in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction by notice of appeal, instead of by
petition for review, the appeal is inefficacious and should be dismissed.

d) No transfer of appeals erroneously
taken. – No transfer of appeals erroneously taken to the Supreme
Court or to the Court of Appeals to whichever of these tribunals has
appropriate appellate jurisdiction will be allowed; continued ignorance or
willful disregard of the law on appeals will not be tolerated.^[4]

Since only questions of law were raised before the Court of
Appeals, the instant petition should be dismissed under Circular No. 2-90. As pointed out by respondent Court of
Appeals, petitioner admitted in its petition that what it filed was a
“Petition for Review on Appeal upon a question of law of the Decision of
the Honorable Presiding Judge of Branch 64 of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Metro Manila.”^[5]
Petitioner cannot now belatedly retract this admission.

Specifically, the following questions were raised before the
appellate court: (a) whether the RTC
erred in affirming the dismissal of the MeTC considering the alleged valid and
meritorious claims of plaintiff; (b) whether the RTC erred in dismissing the
case on the ground of prescription that was not raised as a defense by private
respondent; and, (c) whether the RTC erred in applying the COGSA and holding
that the action had prescribed because more than one year had elapsed from the
delivery of the cargo to the consignee on 13 January 1987 to the filing of the
complaint on 9 November 1988.^[6]

As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the second and
third issues are evidently pure questions of law because their resolution is
based on facts not in dispute. With regard to the first question,
PROVIDENT argues that it was necessary to go
over the records. But we do not
agree. Whether the MeTC was correct in
dismissing the case grounded on prescription and, corollarily, whether the
dismissal on such ground may be had without going into the merits, are questions
of law which do not require an examination of the facts on record. Thus, it is incumbent upon every attorney
who would seek review of a judgment or order promulgated against his client to
make sure of the nature of the errors he proposes to assign, whether these be
of fact or of law; then upon such basis, to ascertain which court has appellate
jurisdiction; and, finally, to follow scrupulously the requisites for appeal
prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or imprecision in compliance may well
be fatal to his client’s cause.^[7]

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the Resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals of 2
March 1993 and 28 May 1993, the instant petition for review is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Penned by Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, concurred in by Justices Serafin E.
Camilon, Chairman, and Ricardo P. Galvez.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 64.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 67.

^[4]
Par. 4.

^[5]
See Records, Court of Appeals, p. 2.

^[6]
Id., pp. 5-6.

^[7]
Par. 4 (e), Circular No. 2-90.