Insular Savings Bank vs.

Far
East Bank and Trust
Company
G.R. No. 141818
June 22, 2006
Facts

Philippine Clearing House

Corporation’s Arbitration Regional Trial Court (Makati)
Committee Civil Case No. 92-145

Far East Bank and Trust Company Far East Bank and Trust Company

Complaint
Complaint

Home Bankers Trust and Company Home Bankers Trust and Company
and its president and depositors
 Regional Trial Court (Makati)
Arbitration Committee
Civil Case No. 92-145

 Decided in favor of Far East Bank  Insular Savings Bank filed a

and Trust Company. PETITION FOR REVIEW in the earlier
 A motion for reconsideration was case filed by Far East Bank and
filed by Insular Savings bank but it Trust Company.
was denied

 The Regional Trial Court dismissed

the petition of Insular Savings
bank for lack of jurisdiction on the
ground that it should have been
docketed as a separate case
ISSUE

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the petition for
review filed by Insular Savings bank?

NO
 Ruling
 Proper recourse of Insular Saving Bank from the denial of its motion for
reconsideration by the Arbitration Committee is to file either:
1. A motion to vacate the arbitral award with the RTC;
2. A petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court; or
3. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

 In the case at bar, Insular Savings Bank filed a petition for review with the RTC when
the same should have been filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court.
 The RTC is correct in dismissing the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction but not
on the ground that petitioner should have filed a separate case but on the necessity
of the filing the correct petition in the proper court
 Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction in petitions for review or in petitions for
certiorari.

 Therefore, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the petition for review filed by
Insular Savings Bank.