G.R. NO. 171532 - UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (FORMERLY WESTMONT BANK), VS. HON. JUDGE REYNALDO ROS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 33, AND ROSEMOOR MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is DENIED on the ground of estoppel . Similarly ill-fated was petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the foregoing Order which was denied by the RTC in another Order dated 5 January 2004. [18] Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari [19] before the Court of Appeals, alleging that the Manila RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders dated 16 October 2003 and 5 January 2004. In a Decision [20] promulgated on 19 April 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Manila RTC Orders dated 16 October 2003 and 5 January 2004 and upheld the latter's finding that petitioner was now barred from questioning the jurisdiction of the lower court after it had participated in several stages of the proceedings therein including the presentation of its witness. In addition, the appellate court declared that an interlocutory order, such as an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss, cannot be the subject of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari , save on well-recognized exceptions, which were wanting in the instant case. The Court of Appeals likewise denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, since the arguments raised therein were mere reiterations of those already considered and passed upon by the appellate court. [21] Undaunted, petitioner filed this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari [22] before this Court, alleging that the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying its Petition for Certiorari are contrary to law. For the resolution of this Court then are the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY THE PETITIONER. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER IS BARRED BY LACHES FROM QUESTIONING THE RTC's JURISDICTION. WHETHER OR NOT THE FAILURE OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE DOCKET FEES WARRANTS THE DISMISSAL OF THE INSTANT CASE. Petitioner asserts that the appellate court committed an error of law in dismissing its petition for certiorari and affirming the Orders dated 16 October 2003 and 5 January 2004 of the RTC. It argues that the private respondent's attempted subterfuge, i.e. , failing to state the amount of damages being claimed and to pay the corresponding docket fees, warrant the penalty of dismissal of its case. At the outset, attention must be called to Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit: SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from: (a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration; (b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment; (c) An interlocutory order; (d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal; (e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession