The Facts:
On November 25, 2008, Corazon was convicted by the Regional Trial Court
of the crime of Estafa. According to her, she received the decision on
January 13, 2009 and filed a timely motion for reconsideration, but the
same was denied on May 20, 2009, copy of the order of which she received
on July 31, 2009. She then filed her Notice of Appeal on August 3,
2009, which the RTC, by order dated June 29, 2010, denied for allegedly
being belatedly filed. Because of this, Corazon thru counsel filed a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme
Court, assailing the denial of her Notice of Appeal, the Decision
convicting her of Estafa, as well as the Motion For Reconsideration/New
Trial filed by her.
The Court’s ruling:
We deny the petition.
At the outset, the Court notes that the
instant case suffers from various procedural infirmities which this
Court cannot ignore and are fatal to petitioner’s cause. It appears that
petitioner assails not only the denial by the RTC of her notice of
appeal but likewise seeks the reversal of her conviction for estafa. For
reasons that will be discussed below, the petition is bound to fail,
because of petitioner’s complete disregard of the procedural rules and
the orders of the Court.
First, petitioner availed of the wrong
mode of assailing the trial court’s denial of her notice of appeal.
Sections 2 and 3, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
lay down the rules on where, how and when appeal is taken, to wit:
SEC. 2. Where to appeal. – The appeal may be taken as follows:
x x x x
(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the
Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by
the Regional Trial Court; and
x x x x
SEC. 3. How appeal taken. – (a) The
appeal to the Regional Trial Court or to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal filed with the
court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. – An
appeal must be taken within fifteen days from promulgation of the
judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from x x x.
Consequently, the disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself[1].
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of
appeal of a lower court’s decision or final order direct to the Supreme
Court. However, the questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is not
a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken[2].
The Rules of Court specifically provides that no appeal shall be taken
from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved
party can elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule
65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of appeal in this petition under
Rule 45 instead of the appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the petition
merits an outright dismissal[3].
The Court has often admonished litigants
for unnecessarily burdening it with the task of determining under which
rule a petition should fall. It has likewise warned lawyers to follow
the requisites for appeal prescribed by law, ever aware that any error
or imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to the client’s cause[4].
Second, even if we treat this petition
as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for
violation of the hierarchy of courts[5].
Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and
the CA to issue writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as
granting parties the absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the
court to which an application will be directed[6].
Direct resort to this Court is allowed only if there are special,
important and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in
the petition, which are not present in this case[7].
Third, even if we ignore the above
non-compliance and consider the petition as an appeal of the trial
court’s decision convicting her of estafa, again, we cannot do so for
yet another fatal procedural shortcoming committed by petitioner. As
stated earlier, petitioner elevated to this Court not only the Order
denying her notice of appeal but also the Decision convicting her of
estafa and the Order denying her motion for reconsideration. In utter
disregard of the rules of procedure, petitioner attached to the petition
only the June 29, 2010 RTC Order denying her notice of appeal but she
failed to attach a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified
true copy of the assailed decision convicting her of estafa and the
order denying her motion for reconsideration[8].
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
must contain a certified true copy or duplicate original of the
assailed decision, final order or judgment[9]. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition[10].
The main reason for the prescribed
attachments is to facilitate the review and evaluation of the petition
by making readily available to the Court all the orders, resolutions,
decisions, pleadings, transcripts, documents, and pieces of evidence
that are material and relevant to the issues presented in the petition
without relying on the case records of the lower court[11].
Lastly, this petition is bound to fail
because of petitioner’s repeated disregard of the Rules and the Court’s
lawful orders. In a Resolution[12]
dated September 15, 2010, the Court required petitioner to fully comply
with the Rules of Court, the pertinent portion of which reads:
x x x x
2. petitioner to FULLY COMPLY with the
Rules by submitting: (a) an affidavit of service on the RTC and on the
Office of the Solicitor General; (b) a proper verification in accordance
with Section 1, Rule 45 in relation to Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules,
and a valid certification of non-forum shopping in accordance with
Section 5, Rule 7, with properly accomplished jurat showing that the
affiant exhibited before the notary public at least one current
identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the affiant as required under Sections 6 and
12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by Court
En Banc Resolution dated 19 February 2008 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC; and
(c) her counsel’s contact details pursuant to the En Banc Resolution
dated 10 July 2007 in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC, all within five (5) days from
notice. x x x[13]
Despite the directive, no such
compliance was made prompting the Court to require her counsel to show
cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for non-compliance.
Records likewise show that petitioner also failed to file a Reply to
respondent’s Comment to the petition.
On August 2, 2011, petitioner’s counsel
submitted his explanation for non-compliance and asked for more time
within which to comply with the Court’s resolution, because of heavy
workload and his failure to contact petitioner who apparently
transferred residence. In a Resolution[14]
dated August 31, 2011, the Court, while granting the motion for
extension requested, admonished petitioner’s counsel for the
unsatisfactory explanation. Yet again, petitioner failed to file the
required Reply prompting the Court again to ask for the counsel’s
explanation why he should not be disciplinary dealt with. Petitioner’s
counsel claimed that he could not prepare the required reply because the
documents needed had been destroyed by typhoon “Pedring.” He, likewise,
pointed out that he exerted earnest efforts to locate petitioner but he
could not do so at that point[15].
After the Court required him again to show cause why he should not be
disciplinary dealt with for not complying with the Court’s resolutions,
and since his efforts to communicate with his client proved futile, he
asked the Court that he be relieved of all his duties and
responsibilities as counsel on record[16]. In a Resolution[17] dated December 10, 2012, we required petitioner herself to comment thereon, but no such compliance was made to date.
Indeed, cases should be determined on
the merits after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of
their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some
procedural imperfections in order to serve better the ends of justice[18]
It is the duty of the counsel to make sure of the nature of the errors
he proposes to assign, to determine which court has appellate
jurisdiction, and to follow the requisites for appeal[19]. Any error in compliance may be fatal to the client’s cause[20].
It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural
right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of
statutory origin and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by
the provisions of law authorizing its exercise[21].
The requirements of the rules on appeal cannot be considered as merely
harmless and trivial technicalities that can be discarded at whim. In
these times when court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations,
parties have to abide by these rules with greater fidelity in order to
facilitate the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases[22].
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 193217, February 26, 2014, CORAZON MACAPAGAL, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[1] Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844, 854 (2002).
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 855.
[4] Id. at 856.
[5] Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito, 545 Phil. 311, 319 (2007).
[6] Id. at 319-320.
[7] Id. at 320.
[8] Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 4 reads:
SEC. 4. Contents of the petition. –
The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original
copy intended for the court being indicated as such by petitioner, and
shall x x x (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original,
or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution
certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite
number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record
as would support the petition; x x x.
[9] Spouses Lanaria v. Planta, 563 Phil. 400, 414 (2007).
[10] Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 5.
[11] B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Alzul, 551. Phil. 841, 860 (2007).
[12] Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[13] Id. at 27. (Emphasis in the original)
[14] Id. at 54-55.
[15] Id. at 57-61.
[16] d. at 65-68.
[17] Id. at 70.
[18] Hilario v. People, G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 191, 203.
[19] ] Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, supra note 10, at 855.
[20] Id. at 856.
[21] Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito, supra note 14, at 320; id. at 867.
[22] Basuel v. Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), 526 Phil. 608, 614 (2006).
No comments:
Post a Comment