JENETTE MARIE B. CRISOLOGO, petitioner, vs. GLOBE TELECOM, INC. and CESAR M.

MAUREAL,
VICE PRESIDENT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES., respondents-appellees.
[G.R. No. 167631. Decembeer 15, 2005.]

FACTS:

Petitioner Jenette Marie Crisologo was an employee of respondent company Globe Telecomm where she
was promoted as Director of Corporate Affairs and Regulatory Matters, she became entitled to an
executive car. In April 2002, she was separated from the company. The petitioner filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which was later dismissed.
Petitioner filed a petition certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing NLRC’s dismissal.

On the other hand, Respondent company Globe Telecom filed in the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong
an action for recovery of possession of a motor vehicle with application for a writ of replevin with
damages. Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia and forum shopping
which was denied by the court. The petitioner also filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for the
issuance of a writ of prohibition to enjoin proceeding in the replevin case before the trial court. Therefore,
the respondent filed a motion to declare the defendant in default in the civil case. Thus, the respondent
company was allowed to present evidences ex parte. Petitioner then filed for a motion for reconsideration
of the order of default but was denied by the trial court.

The petitioner now in this court filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
which was denied by the court in a resolution for being the wrong remedy under the 1997 Rules of
Procedure. Petitioner cited that case of Matute vs. CA, wherein it was ruled that a party declared in default
has the remedy set forth in Sec 2, paragraph 3 of Rule 41 of the Old Rules of court.

Hence, this motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argued that even if the present petition is not the
proper remedy, the court should have taken cognizance of the case because it involves questions of law.

LAW INVOLVED:

Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

(a) Ordinary Appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals incases decided by the Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with
the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy
thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special
proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so
require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

Sec 5(f) and Section 6 par. 2 Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

Section 5(f): The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the
following grounds:

(f) Error in the choice or mode of appeal

 Section 6 par. 2: 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. The
determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be final.

LEGAL QUESTION REGARDING THE LAW:

Whether or not the petitioner’s present motion for reconsideration, alleging that the filing of
the petitionk is the proper recourse, should be dismissed.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

NO.

The Supreme Court ruled that in the case that the petitioner did not the file the proper remedy,
the court may refer the case back to the Court of Appeals under Rule 56, Section 6 par. 2 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure despite the express provision in Section(f) of the same rule which provides that an
appeal may be dismissed where there is error in the choice or mode of appeal. Both Sections 5(f) and 6 of
Rule 57 use the term “may” denoting discretion on the part of the court in dismissing the appeal or
referring the case to the Court of Appeals.

The question of fact involved in the appeal and substantial ends of justice warrant the referral of
this case to the Court of Appeals for further appropriate proceedings.

Hence, the petition for motion for reconsideration is GRANDTED. The petition is reinstated and
referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.

RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: